Continued discussion on the RUCore Brochure that Harry Glazer drafted took place. Committee members had more suggestions and comments both relating to certain areas of the content but also on editorial issues pertaining language/wording used in the brochure.
Bob and Haipeng as cochairs of CSC were invited to the PCC for the discussion on the status of the committee, what structure should it have, or should it continue to exist or be disbanded? Other issues were also briefly discussed including the composition, the charge, and the mission of the CSC.
Bob and Haipeng reported that the PCC had a pretty long discussion on the status of the committee. Questions included if the CSC should be a council-like committee, a subcommittee of a council, a faculty committee to be written into the by-laws, or an administrative committee. After some discussions, the PCC voted on the status of the CSS to make it a faculty committee to be written in the by-laws. The PCC also asked Bob and Haipeng to have discussions on the CSC regarding its mission, charge, role and composition. Please read the PCC committee meeting minutes if interested.
Discussions were held around the mission and charge first. We looked at the charges currently posted on the website and noted those charges were basically reproduced from the Library’s Strategic Planning document. We realized that we needed our committee’s own mission and charges. Some of the specifics ere also discussed such as the role of the committee, whether an advisory committee or a committee that can actually act on decisions. We felt like that we should be in the role of making recommendations on policies and guidelines in the area of scholarly communication. Regarding committee composition, it was suggested that we do away with the subject of “digital librarianship” as a subject area and instead have an “at large” member for anyone who is interested in serving. Jeanne agreed to look at the LRC and USC compositions and see how they are presented. Another suggestion is to have Rhonda Marker appointed member of this committee because of the nature of her work.
We agreed to have a smaller group to work on this and report back to the CSC. Bob, Haipeng, and Rhonda agreed to be in this group. Ryan was suggested to be a member of this group so Bob will contact him to see if he is willing and available.
As was discussed in the previous meeting, the need to contact faculty who attended the Oct. symposium and indicated their willingness to be contacted is urgent. Quite a few faculty expressed interest in being contacted and many made suggestions regarding open access and scholarly communication. We decided to send out a generic letter (Bob will write) to these faculty wishing them a good holiday but also indicating that someone in the Library (a liaison) will be in contact with him/her as followup. Then Bob and Rhonda will contact liaisons to reach a wider pool of faculty. At a later point, the committee is interested in planning on a discussion for liaisons of how to reach and talk to faculty on issues regarding scholarly communication. Haipeng brought an article entitled “Scholarly Communication: Planning for the Integration of Liaison Librarian Roles,” published in the Research Library Issues 265. The article talks about how to get liaisons involved in the process of advocating/promoting scholarly communication.
This was an issue which was brought up in October did not get discussed at the Nov. meeting. Since we were running out of time at this meeting, we decided to continue the discussion at the Jan. meeting; but generally folks think this is a good idea. Haipeng indicated that he surveyed the literature and found out only one library issued an open access policy for the library faculty, the Oregon State University Libraries. A suggestion was made to get a copy of the document and share it with the committee for the discussion at the next meeting. Haipeng will look into that. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.
Haipeng Li Respectfully submitted 12-18-09