...
Lynne E. Grigsby , co-chair
Cathy Martyniak (Unlicensed) , co-chair
Allison Wohlers (guest)
Discussion items
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Note taker Eifler | ||||||
| 2 | How are we? | simple check in | 10 | All | |||
| 3 | SLFB news | Update RCTF on SLFB feedback from 18th | 5 | CM and AW | Cathy explained the role of the Shared Library Facility Board which meets quarterly and includes the 10 ULs, the ED of CDL, the SRLF and NRLF Directors, a LAUC representative, and a faculty member. The current Chair of SLFB is Eric Mitchell of San Diego, will be Steven Mandeville-Gamble of Riverside. One of their roles is to allocate RLF deposit capacity. At their last meeting they asked that the UL’s have input into our (RTCF’s) report prior to its publication. | ||
| 4 | Alison Wohlers as special guest, Chair of SPCMS | Increased awareness of systemwide needs around RLF operations | 20 | All | Allison Wohlers reiterated that this input would provide an opportunity to address UL perspective, which they also have through PCMS, SDLG and CLG. Allison is the Shared Print Program Manager at CDL and talked about Systemwide Print Collection Management Strategy Working Group (SPCMS). SPCMS emerged from the Shared Library Facilities Board in order to strategically manage the RLFs back in 2020 to strategically manage the print collection and preserve it into the future. It’s charge can be found at https://cdlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0.FINALcharge_Working-Group-for-Systemwide-Collection-Strategy_2020.06.25.pdf It combined the Shared Print Strategy Team and the Shared Content Leadership Group to work on defining a systemwide management plan to prioritize deposits to RLF. Several recommendations are moving through the direction and oversight committee that are moving to CoUL in an effort to engage with the question of distributed (current) vs. shared/consolidate ownership (where we’re headed) management of print collections. The “RLF-only” IZ is compelling and we’re moving in this direction as it supports an equitable model of discovery across campuses, saves work and helps brands the collection as a “UC” collection as opposed to part of a specific site collection. There was brief discussion about the need to think about what happens with local notes when items are taken out of local IZs. | ||
| 5 | Survey questions |
| 10 | LG and CM | Survey questions are being designed to go to campuses and we’ll also need to include CDL. We’ll need to decide which survey “overlap” questions will be used in. Lynne pointed out that questions have to relate to what we’re trying to accomplish. | Decided we will have three smaller surveys :1. resource management, 2. fulfillment, and 3. discovery. | Work independently to tag questions for the appropriate survey (resource management, fulfillment, or discovery) in the next two weeks. Consider expanding the questions to include information about how Alma works so that respondents fully understand the implications of the question. We need to consider if it is perhaps better to issue the survey AFTER Alma go-live so responders know what we’re talking about.
|
| 6 | Absence | LMW cannot join us on the 12th | |||||
| 7 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion | |||||
| 8 | |||||||
| 9 | Total | x/x |
...