Page Comparison

Housekeeping

Are there any brief announcements or notices?

00:02

Ginny, Aislinn

• Sarah T. has begun meeting with the UCSC cohort members, to share information and communication items. Several other campuses are doing this as well to support local engagement and info-sharing.

Finalize team charter

SGTF team charter (see new options for the objective statement).

00:05

Ginny

• Further edits were made to the team charter, and the task force selected an objective: “Support and advance the excellence of the UC Libraries through the development of a sustainable SILS operational (post-go-live) shared governance model.“

• Decision: SGTF endorses their Team Charter.

Shared governance assumptions (continued from last task force meeting)

Phase 4 SGTF pre-mortem

• Brainstorm & discuss: What assumptions do we have about “the next” SILS shared governance structure (i.e. for ongoing operations)?

00:18

Aislinn

Finalize

Ginny

• This exercise (and the resulting list) is about raising assumptions; they are not necessarily shared by all task force members. The exercise allows us to understand one another’s expectations for SILS governance and the terminology we use to express those expectations/assumptions. This document can also act as a reference to the task force moving forward.

• SLFB and UCLAS are two different and separate structures; the task force should compare and contrast the two (what are the differences, what do they offer?), but we should acknowledge that they take governance in two different directions.

• Will the group that oversees the SILS be more like SCLG, as opposed to SLFB?

• A number of services represented within UCLAS involve shared resources; shared resources do not necessitate a separate structure outside of UCLAS.

• In terms of faculty engagement, existing faculty groups might be engaged (as opposed to seeking out faculty membership on SILS groups).

• Would a steering/leadership group be representative, or smaller and expert-based (with representative groups reporting up)? This will require further discussion.

• Representative vs. smaller expertise/functional groups - this will require more discussion as well.

Review the proposed work plan

Phase 4 SGTF workplanwork plan (draft)

• Review & discuss:

  • Are any “stages” missing? Is the timing correct?

  • Are any tasks missing?

00:25

Danielle

• Edits, such as to include assessment/engagement with peer institutions, were made directly in the work plan.

Decision: Because we do not yet know the end-date for phase 4 and when the transition to operational governance (post-go-live) will take place, the SGTF work plan should reflect a window within which the final deliverable (the ongoing governance structure) will be submitted. This will support scenarios where the ongoing governance is launched before go-live as well as after go-live.

Action: Aislinn, Ginny and Danielle will take the feedback and edits from the SGTF’s discussion today and will further revise the work plan. An updated work plan will then be shared with the SGTF for review and endorsement.

Total

00:50