Program Committee Minutes

April 24, 2014

2:00-3:30pm

Attendance: Nancy Courtney, Ruth Sesco, Larry Allen, Laura Kissel, Gay Jackson, Erin Fletcher, Lisa Carter

1.  Updates –

  1. the Hathi Trust presentation will be rescheduled for early fall
  2. Nancy will schedule through Meris to discuss the environmental scan with the ELF
  3. Alison has been added to the Programming Committee’s listserv and will be participating in some committee meetings in the future
  4. May meeting will be cancelled; next meeting in June

2.  Discussion of topics for next year’s professional development program, focusing on the feedback from exec

  1. We need 2-3 more programs (besides Hathitrust) for next year
  2. The way we managed programs last year worked well, so we will continue in a similar manner for next year, that is, dividing into smaller subgroups that will each handle an event
  3. Proposal ideas:

i.  David Green to discuss the Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries Project, described in this C&RL News article http://crln.acrl.org/content/74/9/488.full

  1. a Digital Scholarship Symposium to learn about cutting-edge digital scholarship work happening in Libraries and imagining possibilities for our faculty and programs. It could build relationships with colleagues engaged in digital scholarship work
  2. Digital Initiatives Seminar Series
  3. Transforming Liaison Roles
  4. Aligning Services with Users Needs
  5. Copyright
  6. Feedback from group –
  7. Laura feels there is enough focus on digital everything and prefers focus on liaison roles and other topics
  8. Nancy preferred not to consider copyright or online user needs. She pointed out that copyright is Sandra’s territory and her unit has done successful workshops, so it is already being addressed.
  9. Erin thought that Digital scholarship would link well to make a wider impact and presentations could be formatted for either 1 or 2 day events. Case Western had a similar program that went well and exec likes the idea. Erin was not sure how long it should be or how well linked it might be with the digital commons, but we could put together a small group that would include Melanie who already has interests in this area to figure out some possibilities. A sub-group of Erin, Melanie and Sarah will put together a proposal and try to include Terry as a partner and coordinate with his Digital Initiatives Seminar Series.
  10. Erin also thought that Transforming Liaison Roles and Aligning Services could be one program with 2 speakers as a combined program or a small group panel. Everyone agreed. Jose is interested in this topic too, and it should include ELF. Nancy suggested that the small groups should invite Meris and Jose to fleush out and explore the idea. Larry also volunteered to work with it. Primary members of the subgroup will be Larry, Laura and Kathy. This topic could include the proposed speaker under aligning services with user needs.
  11. To summarize, the committee will propose to Exec two programs in addition to the rescheduled HathiTrust program. One will be the Digital Scholarship Symposium, which should be coordinated with the seminar series Terry Reese is putting together. The other will be on Transforming Liaison roles and should also incorporate the “aligning services with use needs” topic also proposed by Exec.
  12. Nancy will assign committee members to the program development of each of the topics chosen, as some members are not present at this meeting.
  13. Time frame: HathTrust in early fall semester, plus a program by Oct./Nov., and the third in Mar./Apr.
  14. First draft deadline will be at the June meeting when each sub-group will present preliminary info on the programs

3.  Proposal review draft – Erin presented

  1. Info at top is intended to frame the purpose and to define what the departments want and what the committee wants
  2. The details section tries to put nuts and bolts in one section and combined questions in another section. This may help us better define the target audience. The old form lacked alignment and goals so now it requests this info upfront and identifies the determining measures for success which should also provide us with a framework for assessment. The funding/budget was left open, to suggest an overall view in a general sense.
  3. Lisa Carter stated that “Rooms are money,” was well placed in the opening paragraph
  4. “Support needed” was set-up by checkboxes
  5. We should look at this in terms of how it helps us as a committee and how it frames the proposal for the submitter
  6. Do we need to ask about how it will be promoted? We don’t need to know in advance though it would be helpful to start with as much information as possible. Lisa, Erin and Larry have talked in the past about a communications plan based on a time-table as a guideline indication of what needs to be addressed, and it would include certain things on how it’s promoted in terms of colleges involved and targeted audience. Nancy could send out the timeline template at the time the committee approves the proposal. This timeline has a different dynamic than how we managed it in the past. There is a web page that sends interested people to this form and that is where the timeline needs to be indicated and linked.
  7. Nancy thought it was important to identify what rooms they are interested in especially in regard to the 11th floor.
  8. AV needs are only significant if they require unusual needs.
  9. Lisa added that the form frames the proposal as “so you are going to have an event” while it should be “so, you would like to propose an event”. It’s a subtle difference, but the form currently leads the submitter to believe they are just telling you about the program they’ve already planned rather than that they are suggesting a program that they want your approval for (and can’t have if they don’t get your approval). So the wording of the questions might be changed. Instead of “where will this event be held” the question should be “what space are you requesting for this event” or “where would you like to hold this event”.

The meeting was cut short by a fire alarm. All were dismissed until the June meeting at 2:45pm.