Left Menu Right Menu

Notes of the Joint Board & Coordination Meeting

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Univ of Puget Sound


Board: Popko, Carlin, Bagley, Chadwell, Greenberg, Johnson, Baird, Helmer, Schaffer, Baird

Staff: Fountain, Cornish, Schmitt, Allison-Bunnell, Arnold

Team Chairs, etc.: Trevor Bond, Wade Guidry, Nathan Mealey, Drew Harrington, Megan Drake, Serin Anderson for Mike Olson

5. Q&A after opening presentations


Board is intentionally trying to push major policy identification and recommendations down to the Team level, but the Team is expected to have done a lot of background, consultation, legwork before bringing to Exec Dir, Council, or Board.


Where does policy enforcement live? CS had no answer. JH suggests it gets noticed, peer pressure applied, and possible Board or Council pressure on the Council member in the spotlight. CS used 3-copy guideline as example of limited enforcement as a result of extended Council discussion. JH used example of a letter to a member in an egregious situation (years ago).


Clean up use of team and committee in the document on the web. To what extent does/should the Council Liaison to a Team have some form of expertise? CS we try to match up expertise to Team.

How does Council Rep not impose natural leadership aura: to what extent just observe, report back, push, guide, etc. JH brought up the 2010 doc to guide Council Liaison role. JH notes occasional power imbalance. It’s a tricky role. JP suggests this is 4-1/2 yrs old and in light of . FC suggests we create parallel doc for the Team Leader role. DH – does should the Council Liais and Team Leader and Progrm Mgr to maintain good supportive productive relationship. Leads Jane to suggest we go back and write up a new Protocol for interaction , a kind of best-practice, among these individuals in this new team environment KF suggests targeting ProgMgr, Team Leader, Council Liaison.

6. Ending: Comments on team or working group transitions

CDMC stuff moving to SCT

DDA service.

Distributed print repository and relationships to WEST.

Review of 3rd copy policy/guideline and the Last Copy Policy.

Continue to think about collection sharing

CTST stuff moving to CWFT

Major CTST work in recent past:

Policy development for Alma

Shared standards

Bibliographic Mandates of the past and their relationship to SILS. Likely review and revision in the new environment.

Shared Records Mngmt: work has been done; has recommendations on Marcive records

NWDA transition to CCDT

Handout from Jodi

Changes in names.

Creation of a couple working groups.

Challenge of losing Archivist’s Toolkit and investigatin of ASrchivesSpace.

Will apply new Finance Team guidelines to prepare its proposed FY16 budget

Shared ILS Implementation Team

Currently meeting weekly

Customer Success Program is at a significant transition point. New team at Ex Libris and a new communication stream and format from Alliance to Ex Libris.

Expects a difficult transition for the Normalization Rules WG. Not yet identified leadership for this WG going forward.

SPOT wrap-up and transition

Maintain process of creating a balanced rota

Push ExLib to sending Release Notes earlier to give us chance to digest and test

Continue work on Summit 3 development. Have focused on the “must haves” and are now coping with things we couldn’t see until we went live.

Last 6 months, SPOT has been very reactive. Trying to prepare a baseline report and list of “coulds” and shoulds” for use of the new Teams (Systems? )

MG asked if any outgoing team has created a punch list for the new teams? Sees value in such a set of transparencies that outgoing and incoming teams and Council.

CTST did this and handed off to CWFT. Nothing from CDMC. Jane notes that there have been a couple documents created that might serve this purpose. WG – Systems Group has lots of personnel continuity that will logically help, and have started discussing programmatic continuity.

7. Beginning: Review and clarify team charges and initial goals

All had access to the accompanying document, “Summary of Charges and Annual Goals of New Teams.”

Each team presented.

DDT – Anya and Megan note that the charge and goals previously distributed are out of date. Displayed a new doc that we hadn’t seen before. Focus on system stability, Alma Fulfillment, and Summit 3 is prompting them to push Courier review out a bit. JH asked how realistic this doc is, say in the time-frame of now until May 2015. Megan suggest working groups will have to be created to push some of this ambitious agenda.

Reporting-out comments:

Concern over personnel limitations. Teams aware of resources on other teams and recruitment for working groups.

Team Leaders have a conf call monthly or less to track progress, anticipate overlap, tap expertise.

What will be our process of selecting team members? SysTeam already identifying its “draft picks.” CS confirmed we’ll use existing process, which includes Team Leader making its own nominations. JP asked that director be copied if a Prog Mgr or Team Leader is encouraging his/her employee to be nominated. JH spoke to some of the variability among Council members in the manner in which they allow their staff to be drafted or to volunteer or to require admin approval, etc.

Have we given ourselves too large, varied, and ambitious a set of goals? Can we really accomplish all this? It’s incumbent on Prog Mgrs and Team Leaders to prioritize.

Don’t overlook the crucial importance of making SILS and Summit 3 a full success. Without achieving that original primal goal, other successes will, or might, be viewed as less useful. Others note that in fact the proposed work of our new teams and their goals should be contributing to the ultimate success of SILS and S3. But we should also be prepared to acknowledge when SILS and S3 are “good enough,” but defining that threshold in terms of stability, timing, and functionality, and measures/metrics is work we still need to do. Watch out for the tyranny of perfection.” Don’t forget: we have an RFP that we might turn to as a starting point for determining when we have achieved our SILS objectives.

8. SILS Responsibilities – Review & clarify

This work is a response to many concerns throughout the Alliance that in light of a broad and ambitious agenda we needed to be more detailed and intentional about ensuring the perpetuation and success of SILS activities that have been so prominent during implementation but are not necessarily “done.”

Think of this as “a SILS slice” through our programs and structures.


Systems – Maybe we need to more fully articulate what is meant by “Alma and Primo monitoring and maintenance work?”

CCDT doesn’t yet have or hasn’t been included in the majority of SILS implementation; digital content and its metadata were not a core concern or component of our work with Ex Libris. Need to do so now. And there is the expectation of coop work between CCDT and DDT to make more of the CCDT content discoverable in our Primo environment.

Repeat of the previous comment: What is the definition and timing of SILS being “done?”

9. Confirming Next Steps

Proposal going forward to merge Policy Team and Coordination Meeting into a new Policy & Coordination Team. CS asks for suggestions on how this team should work and communicate in the future. Today’s meeting with the Board does not imply that is the only mechanism that can be used; the P&CT can meet alone.

Adjourned, 12:06pm.

Respectfully submitted,

John Popko, Secretary of the Board