November 29-30, 2016
George Fox University - Portland
Tina Hovekamp (COCC)
Natalie Beach (Chemeketa)
Bill Waters (Clackamas)
Michelle Bagley (Clark)
Judy Anderson (Concordia)
Suzanne Milton (EWU)
Merrill Johnson (GFU)
Lori Wamsley (LCC)
Mark Dahl (L&C)*
Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield)*
Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst)
Megan Dugan (MHCC)
Chris Shaffer (OHSU)
Kelly V. Peterson-Fairchild (OIT)*
Faye A. Chadwell (OSU)*
Isaac Gilman (Pacific)
Maria Wagner (PCC)
Marilyn Moody (PSU)
Dena Hutto (Reed)*
Scot Harrison (SMU)
Michael Paulus (SPU)*
Jan Hartley (SU)
Jeffrey Gayton (SOU)
Greg Mullins (TESC)
Lynn Baird (UI)*
Adriene Lim (UO)*
Xan Arch (UP)
Jane Carlin (UPS)
Carolyn Gaskell (WWU)
Reginald Nichols (WPC) (Nov 29)
Allen McKiel (WOU)
Mark I. Greenberg (WWU)*
Dalia Corkrum (Whitman)
Amanda Clark (Whitworth)
Craig Milberg (Willamette)
Carolyn Gaskell for Patricia Cutright (CWU)
Cynthia Fugate for Betsy Wilson (UW)
Trevor Bond for Jay Starratt (WSU)
Carol Drost for Craig Milberg (Willamette)
(Nov 30 only)
Dana Bostrom, Executive Director*
Elizabeth Duell, Events Coordinator
The meeting was called to order at 11:30 am.
Nancy Hoover introduced Reggie Nichols from Warner Pacific College, and each Council member and proxy introduced themselves, including the proxies: Cynthia Fugate for Betsy Wilson; Trevor Bond for Jay Starratt; Carol Drost for Craig Milberg; and Carolyn Gaskell for Patricia Cutright.
The July minutes were reviewed and on Page 5, it was corrected that Susan Barnes Whyte was proxy for Nancy Hoover. The minutes were approved as corrected.
Baird removed the SILS Evaluation report from the Consent Agenda for later discussion. The rest of the Consent Agenda (Updates on Primo New UI, John H. Helmer Professional Development Awards) was approved.
The Council began a review of the survey results from the Council Communication survey, the recommendations from the Board on follow-up actions, and review of possible Ground Rules for future Council meetings. In small groups, each table discussed the sample Ground Rules and considered what value these would have for the Council and what Ground Rules we should consider. The tables reported: (key themes)
As a follow up, Bostrom proposed that we consider these Ground Rules: (Dana”s proposal). The Council thought these were appropriate, but suggested adding more information about decision making at Council. Baird noted that the Ground Rules can be adjusted for each meeting.
Hutto provided the Treasurer”s / Finance Report. She noted that for Fiscal Year 2016 Closing: Ordinary Income $16,272,811.29 which is 103.7% of budgeted. Expenses were $16,282,647.80 which is 103.9% of budgeted. Our other income was $106,138.57 which was an investment CD income of $6,138.57; New Member initiation fee of $100,000 plus an initial payment from one other new member. She remarked that the most notable expense over budget was the Executive Director search, $84,000 and that staff salary savings (Anya & Keith vacancies) in addition to greater income than expected helped us to end the year positively. Additionally, she advised that the FY2016 tax return has been prepared, but we do have an extension.
Hutto also reported on other Finance Team activities. The Finance Team:
• Provided feedback on HR Task Force issues and Hutto joined the HRTF in September.
• Provided input for the Courier RFP regarding financial principles
• Recommended reinvestment strategy for short-term CDs to the Board, which was accepted at the October Board meeting
• Discussed budget timeline and will work toward creating an executive summary of the budget for Council members
Process for Team and Group Appointments
The Council moved to a discussion on the Team and Group Appointments agenda item. Bostrom discussed the proposal, answering questions about how to incorporate appropriate member representation, given our interest in creating a collaborative workforce where all members contribute. Bostrom noted our need for a broader effort in membership skill development, but that this had to be a future initiative. At the end of the discussion, the Council endorsed the proposal, with the additional request to notify the supervising Council member prior to Team and Group appointments are announced to the Alliance.
Collaborative Workforce Individual Institution Reports
Chris Shaffer, chair of the Collaborative Workforce Team, discussed the Collaborative Workforce documentation and explained the background of the methodology and results.
The Council went to Table discussions targeting: ‘What do you think of the “essential” versus “non-essential” work survey results?’ and ‘Do we need to make any changes to the “counting” method for next year?’
Many appreciated the detail and the groups discussed how this project goes back to the basics of the Alliance. The survey was useful, but needed better definitions and many felt there were gaps in the information. It seems that everyone answered the staff count survey differently, so the data may be compromised. There needs to be an in-depth conversation about what the Council sees as collaborative work as well as that there wasn”t a way to describe the parity of “one person” to take into account that one person will have more than one role and one role that has more than one person working on it. There was a call to have a way to count those who are in one position, but have more responsibilities, i.e. Chair of the group.
There needs to be a way of asking what does the Alliance need. What core groups do we really need and maybe what can be put off? What is the core workforce that we need to contribute to run the Alliance? There was a call for getting a better understanding of where the needs are and what percentage does each institution have to contribute. Many spoke of the desire as an institution to be able to contribute in a meaningful way and information on how to do that is important. At what point are we not able to manage this with member staff and need to hire more central staff? Suggestions included a training process for those who could contribute some of the other kinds of work. Other concerns included that the timeline for getting this information would be long enough that these things will change over time and the Council will need to have a longer term average before making a decision on this data.
After a long discussion, it was decided that Chris Shaffer will be bringing three motions tomorrow about renaming the report and how to count people who are dealing with more than one positions (Chairs etc) and identification of additional groups.
Baird lead a discussion about the process of the election process. Dalia Corkrum gave some background to how we got to the process that we use now. After some discussion, it was decided that elections would continue as they have.
Table Discussions: Centralization versus decentralization issues
Council had table discussions about centralization versus decentralization. Some themes that emerged from that conversation were:
- Within Primo, finding out what customizations are absolutely necessary and aim for more standardization within the Alliance (i.e. perhaps 3 types of “skins” or explore options of “Super” customized Primo; but not a Primo-for-all)
- Collaborate more on:
- Electronic Resources
- Shared Purchases
- Record Loading Coordination
- More conversations about Strategic planning – possibly more & smaller work groups with clear goals before the conversation
- How can we really save work?
- What is core? essential? opt-in?
- Standardized terminology
- Shared Documentation and better tracking of Alliance level work
- What are the big dilemmas we are trying to solve?
- More data crunching/analysis for “bosses”
- More events to share expertise
- More central staff
Wednesday, November 30
Meeting was called to order at 8:30am.
Lynn Baird greeted the Council members and thanked Merrill Johnson for the use of his venue. She went over the changes in the agenda.
Hathi Trust. (Fountain)
Kathi joined via GoToMeeting and went over the highlights about the Hathi Trust document and answered questions.
It was moved and seconded that Council table the Hathi Trust conversation until the Strategic Agenda conversation.
The motion carried.
Jodi Allison-Bunnell discussed the highlights of the DPLA documentation and answered questions.
It was moved and seconded to approve of the overall timeline and the 3 items identified as go/ no go points.
The motion carried.
Chris Shaffer gave the history of the Data Sharing within the Alliance and explained the agreement that the group was working toward and answered questions.
He proposed 2 motions concerning the Collaborative Workforce report.
It was moved and seconded, that the Collaborative Workforce Team:
- change the name of the Collaborative Workforce Model FY16 Benchmarking Summary to the Alliance Committee Contribution Report;
- work with the Board to revise the report methodology to give more credit for roles that have multiple responsibilities, such as a Team member who also serves as chair of a Working Group;
- work with the Board to identify additional Alliance groups that should be included, such as sandbox groups.
The motion carried with one negative vote.
It was moved and seconded that the Council:
· approve the amended Alliance Committee Contribution Report for the first year of benchmarking.
The motion carried with 10 negative votes.
Lynn Baird discussed the results from the conversation the previous day and presented the Ground Rules for the Council discussions:
- Assume Positive Intent
- Be Respectful
- Maintain a Consortial Mindset
- Participate and be Present
- Support the End Result
There was a call to continue work on the ground rules for consensus building and decision making.
Craig Milberg spoke about the goals, methodology, and work with the SILS Evaluation group and answered questions.
Annual Meeting Planning
Bostrom talked about the Annual meeting report in the packet and the hand-out provided.
The conversation centered around having smaller regional meetings targeted around UI or other strategic agenda topics. It was also stated that it is important to bring the teams together and Council liaisons at the Council meetings or at their Representative meetings.
It was decided that there will not be a Summer meeting in 2017 and that there will be smaller regional, topical meetings as well as the Team/representative meeting such as UI & Summit day.
HR Task Force Report
Staff was excused from the room.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:35am.