Program Committee Minutes

June 26, 2014

204 THO, 2:00-3:30pm

Attendance: Nancy Courtney, Ruth Sesco, Larry Allen, Erin Fletcher, Kathie Webb, Melanie Schlosser, Sarah Murphy

1.  Hackathon proposal – does it fit criteria?

  1. Questionable issues:
  2. Do we need to be identified with tech events?
  3. Last year’s did not work on library Issues as promised
  4. Fall is not a good time
  5. Intellectual crossroads can apply to anything; we need something that would align more directly to the library (Craig gave us some guidelines for acceptance); would like more compelling reasons
  6. Positive considerations:
  7. Co-sponsors – Department of Computer Science Engineering, Technology Commercialization Office, and the Open Source Club
  8. It is student research. They may use library resources and more broad information resources. Using the library as a space for this is a good fit.

Last year’s event brought library recognition just because it was the site for the event.

  1. Perhaps Meris can tie it into the research commons and library research and data as well as other study space in the building. (even though the research commons is intended primarily for graduate students)
  2. We need more interaction with STEM departments and this is a 3 day event with as much as 200 attendees expected
  3. The space requested is in the 18th Avenue Library, in the basement and the 3rd floor from Friday through Sunday.
  4. The overall consensus approved the event with a few issues noted:
  5. A need to strengthen the connection to the library and perhaps the research commons in particular
  6. Additional approval may be required from the AD level because the proposal indicates that there is a potential need for IT services and additional security

2.  New proposal form – Many people have questions about proposing programs and Nancy would like to take a copy of the new form to the July ELF meeting where it will also be discussed

  1. recent adjustments included collapsing some things together and clarifying questions regarding program goals that were not explicit on the old form
  2. wanted to show how we were evaluating the proposals by spelling out library goals, providing the criteria and identifying the requested location/room
  3. It is noted that all details are not required upfront, but we need to outline the minimal amount of information required, like goals, value of the program itself and perhaps a concept statement. Also required would be some indication of when the remaining information would be provided
  4. should identify the proposal process and idea development as part of a collaborative process
  5. should state that we need minimal information of the concept for partial approval but would require more information for full approval
  6. include a disclaimer on the form that we are not the final authority but will advance it to library administration if it appears to fit criteria
  7. perhaps rename it as a planning form with components of the plan that need to be addressed or determined by guidelines to be completed as best possible at this point and approved by steps/degrees that are more strategic
  8. Perhaps add a checklist box on the side of the form for approval needs
  9. Special collections are an easy connection for library co-sponsorship but we need guidance for other topics. Maybe have strategic themes for each year and still accept anything out there that happens to make a good connection (the environmental scan should help do this)
  10. Larry provided promotional handouts from a set of program themed events that was done in the past. It worked well but would not include all campus wide topics.
  11. The form should alert people to the specifications for the 11th floor because it requires special approval by the exec team and is not always the ideal location due to elevator noise, etc. Perhaps this can be added at the end of the form with the room rental information and also include capacity
  12. Melanie will do another pass of improvements and we can approve by email before our next meeting
  13. ELF – what should be included for the ELF meeting?
  14. People are not completing the Program Database…particularly the attendance numbers as this is included in determining library rankings
  15. Must define what constitutes a program (Sometimes things listed in the teach database really belong in the Programming Database, etc.)
  16. State whether it is public or private, and if in doubt contact Sarah or Nancy
  17. State that a new criteria document Is being planned
  18. Identify that we are partners in the process planning and that the document be used as a step by step planning guide
  19. stress the significance of why we need to be involved early

3.  University level programming in conjunction with the Civil Rights exhibits (Erin)

  1. this is a huge diversity and inclusion topic and campus wide program - still identifying co-sponsors and ideas others bring to the table
  2. Not yet determined who the leader will be on this initiative as so far it includes Social Work, the Department of Dance, Student Affairs, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion cartoon artists and a presentation by Congressman John Lewis
  3. There will be a meeting next week with possible campus partners to share information on related topics and to explore interest on campus
  4. Adjustments will be sent to the committee for consideration as things morph and change. This process may provide insights as to how we can better facilitate process involvement by the committee
  5. In proposing big events, it seems best to start with the AD, perhaps a year out. University communications often start earlier as with the 150 year celebration for which planning started 5 years prior. We must set sights for events requiring any amount of planning from a few month’s to as much as a 5 year lead
  6. Knowing the channels to go through is not always clear and neither is knowing when to involve the committee. Maybe when it has broad campus involvement we should do a theme event request for program/satellite relationships, but it would be a lot of work to create buy-in. Difficulty: some challenges are internal and some are not. We are supposed to be agile and nimble in coordinating events and we are finding it cumbersome. People don’t feel comfortable with picking up and running with an idea. It often appears to be largely a top-down process. Erin and Larry will explore these ideas
  7. We must get people to use the proposal form as intended without having anything concrete, just as a shared guide for program exploration
  8. University wide programs are difficult to organize because there are so many components so we need to define a routing process for idea development

4.  Discussion of proposals for next year’s professional development programming

  1. Liaison Roles - Laura will get back with us and will stick to just one speaker
  2. Hathi Trust has been rescheduled for September 18th
  3. Digital Scholarship symposium – some concern of overloading with professional development. Perhaps , bi-monthly or 3 for the year
  4. Last year we had 3 different topics but could use a professional development series on digital initiatives as a theme this year
  5. Perhaps, limit to 2-3 things so as to not overload people, maybe rank by importance and let roll over into next year
  6. Programs must be focused as through themes that shape professional development ideas and connect to broad elements that are interconnected, a span of things with multiple tracks, big picture stuff
  7. It was decided that Terry should work with the committee to identify 2 topics (in addition to +HathiTrust which is rescheduled for September 18) that would be most ideal, themed or not

5.  Meeting adjourned at 3:34pm

3