| 2 | Subgroup to investigate the integration of the SILS into the UC Libraries Advisory Structure (UCLAS) | Subgroup members will present the initial outputs from this work: draft structure(s) for the task force’s consideration. The subgroup will speak to underlying considerations and seek task force member feedback. The subgroup asked the SGTF to consider specific portions of the proposed models (A and B): the Leadership Group and Operations Team. | 00:45 | Felicia, Salwa, Danielle Subgroup member Sarah T. sends her regrets. | Approach taken by subgroup: through extensive discussion, the subgroup defined and grouped likely responsibilities and tasks that need to be managed within the structure . Started to remove the word “governance” - leadership and ongoing post go-live. The subgroup has moved away from using “governance” as the main descriptor for this structure - instead, it details ongoing leadership and operations. Subgroup discussed that the LG a SILS Leadership Group would consider systemwide strategic planning (broadly, as it relates to the SILS), high-level guidance for Operations, supporting larger vendor engagement Subgroup discussed that the OT SILS Operations Team would be akin to the IC/PPCs right now - managing the interplay between the various functional areas. Q: those on LG are AULs/equivalent, where OT are managers/heads? Essentially, yes. Q: SILS LG - actually an LG within UCLAS? Within Yes - within UCLAS, but we have the subgroup is not yet determined how proposing who this group should reports report to. Preference SGTF members noted a preference for model B; . A smaller group is better for strategic planning. Terms , and staggered terms (e.g. 2-3 year) can be effective for bringing in fresh perspectiveperspectives and providing leadership opportunities for all campuses. Q: what about term lengths (sometimes these terms can be for life)? Longer ? Subgroup hasn’t yet discussed term lengths. Task force members noted that longer terms on the OT could be more likely, and in several instances the OT representative might be ex officio, particularly for smaller campuses. LG, for model B, we would want to develop a rotation (create opportunity, new perspective, etc. ). (Agreement - on OT, harder to have folks rotate off, particularly if they plan a specific role within their campus; if B for LG, rotation would be important - – not to say sequential terms can’t happen, but they should be less likely on the LG). If model B , and the LG , reports to DOC - , then it’s also reporting to a representative group; that creates the opportunity for systemwide engagement when necessary. What if we flipped it? LG representative and OT is non-representative? We had discussed this - but it seems as though The subgroup did discuss this; given the standardization and decision-making likely still needed immediately post-go-live, it seems helpful - at least at first , we would benefit from having - to have the OT be representative to begin with. A SGTF member noted that for the issues coming up, it’s very campus specific. We could should expect that this level of specificity will continue to crop up (initially) post go live. OT - certain Q: Certain kinds of expertise in the individuals on OT? Do we want a specific mix? Or does everyone get to pick their person? We’d have a scope: broad ILS knowledge - particularly post-go-live. We wouldn’t be overly specific, in terms of title (flexibility for /campus choice) Further task force agreement/support for Model model B, for encouragement for keeping the rotation moving. Could . Proposal, to ensure membership rotation for the LG, to establish cohorts and/or have future members identified in advance, to ensure campus representation in the rotationopportunities for every campus. Q: Do we need to start with representative on both? Will there be hard feelings at the start, if we don’t go representative at the start for LG? Overall preference for Model B. Support for having a transitional period, and integrate assessment (is this working?)integrated assessment of the structure.
| Decision: The task force prefers Model B. The subgroup will edit draft org. structure to focus on Model B, adding additional context (in the visual, or as an accompanying document), for Aislinn and Ginny to share with WG (Oct. 30). Depending on CoUL feedback to Ginny (see Action), the top box would be labelled “TBD - DOC or CoUL” (or to specify what CoUL indicates). | Action: Ginny will engage CoUL, re: their assumptions around where the SILS should report into UCLAS (do they have any preferences or assumptions that SGTF should consider?). |