Left Menu Right Menu


Board Meeting #11

2011 June 10
8 am- 3 pm
Tower Room
Allen Library

University of Washington

Attendance
Drew Harrington, Chair
Betsy Wilson, Chair-elect
Dalia Corkrum, Past Chair
Chris Shaffer, Treasurer (FY11 & 12)
Karen Clay, Secretary (FY11 & 12)
Jay Starratt, Member at Large (FY10 & 11)
Jane Carlin, Member at Large (FY11 & 12)
Vickie Hanawalt, Member at Large (FY11 & 12)
John F. Helmer, Executive Director (ex officio)

New Board members attending as guests:

Christopher Cox, Member at Large (FY12 & 13)
Michelle Bagley, Member at Large (FY12 & 13)

Absent
Donna Reed, Member at Large (FY10 & 11)

1. Welcome & Agenda Review

2. Summer Meeting
(Harrington)
Expected outcome: Discussion of opening plenary session, participation expectations for Council members; general questions or thoughts about the meeting.
Background: Summer Meeting schedule 

Registration for the summer meeting is currently about 200.  The large number of choices is making the registration confusing for some.  There are some institutions that only have 1 registration at this point.  

3. Shared ILS Team Final Report (Helmer)
Expected outcome: discussion of report, feedback for the team, Board vote to support or revise recommendations.
Document: Final Report (password protected) -- if printing, note that Appendix B is a large format document.

The Board discussed the recommendation to pursue an RFP, the procurement method, timeline, and status of the market.  Members may need to talk with their procurement officer regarding the RFP proposal. 

Vote
:  to put forward recommendation #1 to Council.  Unanimous in favor
Vote:  to put forward recommendation #2 to Council.  Unanimous in favor


4. Digital Services Team (Cox)
Expected outcome: discussion of report, feedback for the team, Board vote to support or revise recommendations.
Documents:

The Board discussed the recommendation to go with Fedora, and the associated costs.  Issues included the impact on staffing, the desire to balance the need against the costs, and the timing of the recommendation (in the context of currently feeling that we have a plethora of options and choices in this area).   There is also the possibility that a shared ILS vendor will wrap the IR functionality in with the ILS.  There is a desire to avoid the fragmentation associated with not picking a direction, and having various institutions take different paths as they can”t wait any longer to get going.  There was recognition that Fedora has a lot of flexibility, and that this area will be in flux for some time to come.

Vote to promote recommendation to council:  unanimous in favor.  

Two members are current members of Hathi.  There is a constitutional convention this summer, and membership and governance issues will be developed.  Betsy will attend and report back.

5. Financial Framework Task Force (Starratt, Shaffer, Bagley, Helmer)
Expected outcome: discussion of report, feedback for the task force, Board vote to support or revise recommendations.
Document: Financial Framework Recommendation

For section #11 of the document, the Board discussed the terminology of ‘membership dues’ vs. ‘membership fees’; the latter usually constitutes a one-time payment, often for a particular service, whereas the former are continuing payments.  For the purposes of this document, it was suggested that payments for the core services that all members are required to buy into be termed ‘membership dues’.  The possibility of including this definition explicitly in the document (in order to minimize confusion) was also discussed.  It was agreed that the term ‘membership dues’ be changed to ‘required membership fees’ wherever it appears in the document; and that, for #11 only, the word ‘Dues’ be changed to ‘financial obligations’.    In addition it was suggested that we remove the last bullet point from item #3, as it is redundant with the second bullet. 

Other suggestions were to note at the very beginning of the document that we have a responsibility to ensure a periodic review (possibly every three years) of the content, and to include the names of the people who drafted this document for attribution. 

Vote:
  recommendation to move this forward to council with minor changes noted above:  Unanimous in favor.

6. Summit
6.1 Revised charge for Summit Policy Task Force (Harrington)
Expected outcome: discussion and revision of charge.
Document: Draft charge
 Board agreed to revise the charge as suggested, vote not needed.
6.2 Summit Usability update (Helmer)
Expected outcome: discussion of report, determination of next steps.  Note that the report recommends that the "SPOT UX group be phased out after the 2011 Summer Meeting ... to be replaced by a structure of one or two User Experience consultants from various Alliance libraries and to bring them in as needed for specific projects with deadlines."
Background: "The Board encourages the Summit Planning and Operations Team (SPOT) to continue working on the usability of WorldCat Local and Group catalog. SPOT is asked to provide a status report for Board consideration in June 2011."
Document: Report from SPOT UX
The Board concluded that there is sufficient expertise within the Alliance to carry out the suggestions, and that the group has a balanced composition.  It will be necessary to update Appendix A. 

7. Short items
Expected outcome: brief report and discussion.
  • Finance Committee report (Shaffer)

We now have signed letters of engagement for consulting and tax filing with Moss Adams.  They will check our balances and financial statements (but not conduct a full audit) for the first year.  We need to prepare a more detailed list of what we want Moss Adams to check (such as agreed upon procedures).  The committee has several longer term projects: 

  • Tax filings are public, and we need to decide how we want to make them public (should access require a request or are they viewable right on a public web page?). 
  • Conflict of interest procedures need to be fleshed out more. 
  • A budget policy and procedures document needs to be developed and forwarded to Council. 
  • Open Repositories Annual Conference in 2013 (Harrington)
    • Briefly discussed during the Board's May 11 meeting, now revisited. 

We have received an invitation (via the scholarly communications interest group) to host a 4-500 person conference with a $185,000 budget.   Discussion indicated that there are numerous opportunities and we should let the group know that the Alliance does not have the capacity to take on such a project at this time.

  • Open Repositories Annual Conference in 2013 (Harrington)
    Briefly discussed during the Board's May 11 meeting, now revisited.
  • Progress reports (Helmer)
Symposium date has been selected early on (good thing). 
A review of NWDA is needed in order to emphasize and highlight all the activity that they are doing.  They are a strong leader in the archival community, and continue to obtain grants.
The DDAPIT will need guidance on when the Board of Directors will decide whether this pilot project turns into a permanent program, and when we need to provide data to support a funding model.
     
8. Council Agenda in July (Harrington)
Expected outcome: discussion of agenda, including meeting with chairs.

The Board discussed a framework for the meeting with the chairs, and the need to recognize the work of the chairs.   Also discussed was the importance of communication with member library staff.  Communications methods considered included electronic methods such as e-mails, blogs, Facebook, etc.

9. Executive session (Harrington) 
Expected outcome: discussion of Executive Director evaluation.


10. Topics for the future

  • Alliance Assessment and ROI (Wilson)  –  It was suggested that we start off with a white paper, plan to do something related at the July meeting, and then put together a group to flesh out something more substantial.
  • Private foundations (MMT, Mellon, etc.)  –  It was debated whether we should be doing more to get on their radar and foster continuing relationships, particularly now that we can apply for grants under our new 501 c 3 status.  The collaborative technical services projects would be excellent candidates for grant money.
  • Minor policy and procedure change (Helmer)
    • Election procedures – it was explained that we do have term limits for people who are on the board (two year term).  Although we have the term limits, our procedures do allow the membership to vote for anyone, regardless of their current position.  In special circumstances (for example if a member is in one position and then elected to another position, thus forcing that member to withdraw from the original position) we will have special additional elections.  However, we should try and ensure that the membership is aware of consequences if they are in one position and could be potentially elected to another.
    • Council Liaisons, length of service – Terms for these positions should be consistent with membership; that is 2 years. 
  • NWDA update re. potential growth and future directions
    • Western Regional Collaboration
    • Cross-Search Utility grant
    • Utah Pilot
    • Regional implementation
      • Archivist toolkit
      • ArchivesSpace
Adjourn at 1:40 pm