Electronic
Resources Steering Team Teleconference—Minutes
February
18, 2005
Members attending:
Tim Jewell (UW), Chair, Heather Whipple (Reed), Greg
Doyle (Orbis Cascade), Diane Carroll (OHSU), Emily Miller-Francisco (SOU),
Barbara Valentine (Linfield), John Creech (CWU), Susan Hinken (UP)
Meeting minutes from January 27th,
2004 meeting: Emily Miller-Francisco’s name corrected, then
ready for posting/distribution.
Action items: Tim will send corrected version to
Greg for posting
- Review of ERC survey results.
- E-resource
renewals and new purchases. Overall, responses to these 5 questions
indicate high levels of satisfaction, with only one of 15 respondents for
any given question indicating that they were either “somewhat
unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied.” There was some discussion of
responses to 4 (types of products) and 5 (number of new resources) and of
related comments – including one that suggested looking at more resources
aimed at undergraduates. There was also discussion of the importance of
ERC members suggesting resources they’d like pursued, and suggestion that
members may not be sure how to do that. It was suggested that Greg
periodically send out a reminder to suggest resources and how to do that.
Also, the Orbis group used to receive Access reports at their periodic
meetings that listed the resources under consideration and related
information; recipients were responsible for redistributing the
information to their constituencies. In addition, one respondent had
suggested distributing invoices via e-mail as a way to save paper.
Action items: 1) Greg will put out a call to the list
soon and repeat that every quarter or so; 2) he will consider logistics of
distributing or posting a “status” spreadsheet; and 3) he will consult with Debi
Baker about the idea of sending invoices via e-mail.
- Communication.
Responses showed a lower level of satisfaction in this area, with 5 or 6
of the 15 respondents indicating that they were somewhat unsatisfied, and
one indicating that s/he was very unsatisfied with both the amount of
information provided about the work of the Steering Committee and
opportunities for input. There was extensive discussion of survey
comments and Steering Team member experiences. One problem is that since
ERC only meets annually, it is very reliant on e-mail as a communication
channel. It can be difficult to get any real discussion going via e-mail
because there are so many messages related to renewals and new products.
One approach to reducing the number of posted messages might be to
encourage list members to respond to renewals and new purchase proposals
directly to Greg; another might be to establish a separate e-mail list
just for renewals. Other discussion focused on the roles ERST members
might play in facilitating communication, such as offering “group
conference calls,” which Steering Team members might initiate with
established lists of contacts. If pursued, it would be important not to
give the impression that each ST member was thereby offering to speak as
an advocate for a specific group; consequently subgroups might be set up
with random assignment, so that there would be a mix of library sizes and
types in each or most. The chair of ERST and ERC could also help
facilitate communication by providing brief ERST meeting summaries to the
list shortly after they occur, and sending out a followup message
pointing to full meeting minutes.
Action items: 1) Tim will send out a brief summary
message to the ERC list and follow up with a pointer to meeting minutes as soon
as those are complete and approved; 2)Greg will look into e-mail list “traffic
management” options; 3) additional discussion of ways to improve communication
will take place during the March 11th ERST meetings – including the
one being held with the Executive Committee.
- May
ERC meeting. All but one respondent indicated that a meeting focused on
marketplace developments and e-journals would be “very interesting” to
them, and all 14 of those responding to the question about their
likelihood to attend said yes. Respondents’ assessments of how interested
they thought non-ERC colleagues might be in such a program were all
positive, but lower than their assessments of their own interest (i.e. 9
thought others would be “very interested” and 6 thought “somewhat interested.”
Discussion: there was consensus that we’re on the right topical track,
but the importance of addressing and improving communication within the
ERC and logistics of mounting a larger meeting suggested limiting the
meeting just to ERC members, and investigating whether some good
candidates for presentation might be attending the Timberline conference.
Action items: Planning for a May 13th
conference limited to ERC members will be initiated, and a roster of Timberline
conference registrants will be obtained to scout for possible speakers.
- Agenda items and discussion strategy for
March 11th meeting at WSU Vancouver.
Primary items so far are to summarize work to
date, including ERC survey results with focus on committee structure and
communication issues, and discuss plans for May 13th ERC meeting.
Minutes prepared by Tim
Jewell, March 8, 2005
