WG How we make decisions in the SILS Working Group

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

1. We use the “Fist-of-Five” to take the pulse of the group and surface concerns; everyone participates.

2. For hard votes (yes/no), we vote on a representative basis. Where several WG members represent the same institution, that institution designates the vote to one person.

3. If a WG member is unsatisfied with the outcome of a vote or has lingering concerns, that member should appeal to the SILS WG co-chairs, Chris Shaffer and Günter Waibel. The co-chairs have the authority to appeal to the SILS project sponsor, CoUL, as needed.

4. At any time, a decision may be escalated to CoUL. In this case, WG would make a recommendation but the final vote would be CoUL’s.

Open

Background

The Working Group has a need to document how it will make decisions during SILS Phase 4. According to the Shared Governance SILS Work Practices (page 5 introduction), “As groups establish their working norms, they should document any changes or additions to their work practices, both to confirm they are shared amongst group members and to make such changes visible to the entire cohort and UC Libraries community.”

The SILS Working Group (WG) is a non-representative group that includes functional representation from public services, collections, and IT. The group also includes CoUL, DOC, CDL and RLF representatives. For phase 4, the WG has more than one member from CDL, UCLA and UCSD. To ensure fair voting and to bolster confidence that decisions will not be unduly weighted by any one institution, the steering committee has proposed and documented a formal voting process for SILS phase 4.

Given the SILS Shared Governance structure it is unlikely that the Working Group will be in a position of taking a vote on an issue that requires campus representation.  If that issue arises, SILS WG should consider if it is the appropriate group to make that decision.

There are cases where SILS WG will vote on the framing of a topic or the escalation of a topic.  In this case a “one campus, one vote” approach ensures that the expertise-based membership of the WG does not overly influence such a vote.

Discussion and voting process: 

Only one WG member per institution will participate in “hard” votes, i.e., formal yes/no decisions. Before “hard” votes are taken, the WG will do a “soft” vote of all WG members using the fist-of-five method to gauge members’ level of support or opposition to the decision at hand while surfacing important factors and concerns for further investigation. The WG recognizes the importance of giving due weight to the advice of experts in the group who do not participate in hard votes. If we start to take a vote that requires representation from all campuses, we reconsider whether we should be voting.

Appeals and escalation process: 

If a WG member is unsatisfied with the outcome of a vote or has lingering concerns, that member should appeal to the SILS WG co-chairs, Chris Shaffer and Günter Waibel. The co-chairs have the authority to appeal to the SILS project sponsor, CoUL, as needed.

Discussion at 4/17/20 WG meeting:

• We first discussed this issue on SILS WG on 2020-02-07 WG Meeting notes in Phase 3, but didn’t finish documenting the process we settled on.

• Groups are empowered to refine and add to the Shared Gov processes. Groups are expected to document any changes/additions as part of the process.

• WG has not taken many hard votes to date. In phase 4, there will likely be more decisions and votes.

• Cohesion of the consortium is paramount.

• Cathy spoke with Ginny about whether RLFs should get a separate vote but they did not reach a conclusion. Only upcoming vote that might trend differently is the RLF report recommendations.

• Todd, Ginny, Cathy (SRLF), Salwa and anyone else at UCB (NRLF) to revisit the decision together.

• We would take Cathy’s expertise into serious account in decision-making regardless of whether the RLFs have a separate vote.

• Shared Regional Libraries Facilities Board would need to be consulted on major RLF decisions.

• If someone does not have a voice on the WG, we should ensure we are keeping their concerns in mind and consulting as needed.

• WG is not representative; we’re expertise-based wearing our systemwide hat.

Questions to consider

1. Do the RLFs get a separate vote from their campuses (UCB, UCLA)?

Action Log