| Steering Group 1 July 2004 |
Steering Group Meeting Minutes
Notes from the meeting held at University of London LibraryPresent: Robert Hall (Chair), Nick Bevan, Mary Davies, Nicky Kershaw, Maureen Wade (Secretary), John Wolstenholme, Christine Wise, Jean Yeoh. Caroline Lloyd was in attendance for item 7.2 1. Apologies:Graham Bulpitt, Margaret Coutts, Maire Lanigan. 2. Minutes2.1 The minutes of the Steering Group held on 6 May 2004 were approved. 2.2 The draft minutes of Consortium meeting held 11 June 2004 at the Victoria and Albert Museum were noted. 2.3.1 It was noted that the Annual Report 2003/2004 was accepted by Consortium Members on 11 June 2004 and can now be disseminated more widely. 2.3.2 It was noted that the Update on the Development Plan was accepted by the Consortium Members on 11 June 2004 and can now be disseminated more widely. Under matters arising from the Consortium meeting, Caroline Lloyd presented a report updating the SG on the M25 Access and Borrowing scheme. The 31 libraries previously in the M25 scheme had not raised any objection to allowing access under the revived scheme. An issue which had come up was access for researchers not on the payroll of some non-HEFCE funded institutions. It was agreed that they would be validated by a librarian at their own institution. It was noted that St George's have joined SRX. Sussex, as a new member, has agreed to recognise M25 cards; NK confirmed that APU would do so also. In response to a question, CW noted that, although the School of Advanced Studies libraries are covered by SRX, the University of London Library is not, due to its complex access and funding arrangements. It was noted that the Rights and Responsibilities paper should be checked to ensure it covers the need to make access and borrowing available on the basis of SRX and/or M25 cards. Action: MW 2.3.3 The revised membership of the Steering Group was noted, including the fact that NK is now co-opted as chair of the Quality Working Group. 2.3.4 Following the request from the ULL Librarian at the Consortium meeting on 11 June, it was agreed that the Chair would draft a response on behalf of the M25 to the University of London Information Strategy document and circulate it to the Steering Group. Action: RH 3. Financial Issues3.1 The SG discussed whether to make transitional arrangements for those whose subscriptions were due to rise for 2004/2005. It was noted that Members as a whole had agreed the new banding system and subscription for 2004/2005. Although some subscriptions were due to rise by a significant percentage, the actual sums involved were small. It was agreed to go ahead with the new banding system and subscription levels as agreed by the Consortium Members on 11 June. 3.2 The SG received and approved the audit of the Consortium accounts for 2001/02 and 2002/03. The Chair expressed the thanks of the SG to Roy Williams for auditing the accounts and to the Treasurer for his hard work in preparing the accounts for the past two years. He also thanked Caroline Holebrook for preparing the CPD25 accounts for 2002/03. 3.3 The Treasurer gave an oral update on the financial position for 2003/2004. He also raised the question of expenses. In the past there had not been a consistent policy on expenses, with most members claiming from their home institution when attending M25 meetings and events. It was agreed that a reasonable policy would be for SG members to claim expenses from their home institution when travelling to regular M25 meetings eg SG and Consortium meetings. However, when representing M25 (or CPD25) at external organisations or events, members could claim expenses from the M25. It was agreed that the Treasurer would contact SCONUL to find out about their expenses regulations eg mileage rates. Action: NB 4. Mutual Support Agreement4.1 CW noted the key remaining actions to disseminate information about the revised DMG website and the Mutual Support Agreement: to get the relevant text pages on the M25 website and to send an email to the LIS-M25 Directors list, informing those who had not been able to attend the 11 June Consortium meeting. She also reported that exchange of experience sessions for disaster management representatives were planned for 11 November. The SG felt that further action should be taken to publicise the excellent work of the DMG and asked CW to contact ML, as Chair of the Advocacy Working Group, with a view to placing articles in eg CILIP, Managing Information, SCONUL Newsletter etc.. Actions: CW 5. Rights and Responsibilities of M25 Consortium members5.1 MW presented revisions to the Rights and Responsibilities paper, as agreed at the Consortium meeting on 11 June. The paper was discussed and amendments agreed. There was some discussion of the nature of Observer status and it was agreed to consider this at a later meeting of the SG, with a view to bringing any proposals to the January meeting of the Consortium. It was agreed that the revised Rights and Responsibilities paper would be circulated to the LIS-M25 Directors list by August. Action: MW 6. M25 Systems Team Service Delivery Plan6.1 RH introduced the Systems Development Plan for the M25 Systems Team; the Plan had been submitted by DM, as Chair of the Resource Discovery Working Group. The SG welcomed and approved the Plan. 7. CPD25 Report7.1 JY introduced a draft report on a Staff Development survey, carried out by CPD25, in conjunction with Oxford University and with other consortia in the North-West and Scotland (NoWAL and SALCTG). CPD25 had been approached by Ian Smith of La Trobe University who had been carrying out work on benchmarking staff development practice in Australia. This then became a wider exercise involving the other partners. When the report has been finalised JY will circulate to all Consortium members and other participating institutions. She will also speak to ML , as Chair of the Advocacy Working Group, about publicising the survey via an article or press release. Action: JY SG members were asked to give comments on the report to JY by mid-July. Action: All 8. Creative Arts Group8.1 The future of the Creative Arts Group had been discussed at the May SG meeting and DD was due to report whether the Group was going to continue or disband. As DD was not present, RH/MW would consult him outside the meeting. Action: RH/MW 9. Constitutional and membership issues9.1 RH reported that he had sent the application for charitable status for the Consortium to the Charity Commissioners. However, they had returned the application, explaining that the Consortium would first have to become a company limited by guarantee. RH, MW and NB had already had some discussion about this and considered that further advice should be taken on procedure and legal implications. It was agreed that the Chair should take further advice. Action: RH 9.2 MW reported that the University of Brighton has become a member. University College, Chichester had been asked by RH and had declined to join. 10. Any other businessRH introduced a paper from Jean Sykes on a feasibility study for a collaborative journals store in London. The Consortium had been represented (by the Secretary) on a small working group which had drawn up a bid to the University of London Vice-Chancellor's fund. The bid had been partially successful, but had not received the total funding required for the full feasibility study. Jean Sykes was therefore asking if the Consortium could contribute some funds to help make up the shortfall. After some discussion it was agreed that some funding should be contributed, on the understanding that the feasibility study would include the requirements of non-University of London M25 members. It was agreed that the Chair should discuss the actual amount with Jean Sykes. Action: RH The Chair relayed a message from ML that the Advocacy Group needed more members. Ideally there should be one member who was also on the Collaboration and Partnership Group as well as some others. JW offered a member from the London Health Group. It was agreed that the Chair would discuss her requirements further with ML. Action: RH 11. Next meetingsThe programme of meetings for 2004/05 was confirmed and venues offered by JY, CW and MW. It was agreed that the Chair would confirm the January date and meeting venue with City University shortly or another venue would be sought. Action: RH 11.1 Steering Group, all at 2.30pm:
11.2 Chairs of Working Groups: to confirm will be held before each SG meeting (unless stated otherwise) starting at 12 noon with a working lunch. 11.3 Full Consortium: all day meetings commencing at 10am.
Maureen Wade |
||||
