CPG minutes
DATE: April 13, 2004
TIME: 9:00 – 10:30 a.m., 435 Capen
Present: Nancy Babb, Janiece Kiedrowski, Rick McRae, Dave Nuzzo, Jill Ortner, Susan Prefontaine, Diana Randall, Barbara von Wahlde, A. Ben Wagner, Margie Wells
Excused: Stewart Brower, Michael Kankiewicz and Steve Roberts
Facilitator: Nancy Babb
Agenda: Jill Ortner
Recorder: Janiece Kiedrowski
Timekeeper: Diana Randall
AGENDA
- Institutional Planning SWOT Analysis
- Action Item Status Document
- Web Site Action Item Status for Strategic Planning Process
- Review of the Strategic Planning Process
- May Town Forum
MINUTES
1. Institutional Planning SWOT Analysis
Barbara queried how we might enhance the initial report prepared by Steve Roberts in response to the President’s request for an analysis of our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). The request is part of the President’s strategic planning effort; the Libraries will work with the office of Voldemar Innus on a report for the Chief Information Officer’s area.
Ben felt something about the scholarly communication process should be included, i.e. Endnote.
Margie suggested making students and information literacy and outreach efforts a bit more prominent in the report.
Janiece felt something should be included about replacement of our library system.
Other opportunities mentioned:
- Dave: Expense of electronic journals and the opportunity to create a different model wherein faculty and researchers are more involved in the acquiring process.
- Barbara: With the new President and Provost, this provides an opportunity for planning where there may be more emphasis on meeting library priorities.
- Community opportunities: As the community grows and changes and new business occurs, our resources can be of benefit.
- An opportunity to perform some community profiling. For instance, specific groups that we know we can support, such as the bioinformatics and research centers.
- Exploit our better known special collections.
- Nancy: Partnering with the School of Informatics. Outreach to faculty about some of the projects that are occurring – emphasis on OUTREACH.
- Barbara: Do we have an avenue for deriving income? Improve our development efforts.
- LibQUAL provides an effective mechanism for recognizing user needs and wants.
- An institutional repository – SUNYwide.
- Digitization of our collections – Digit Project. It may be that our current preservation efforts should have a different look and feel from the way we have done business in the past if we are going to commit to digitizing our collections. Existing collections should be looked at as to how we want to provide access in the future. Electronic theses for instance.
2. Action Item Status Document
Discussion centered around whether we should present the action item status from the perspective of staff or public.
CPG felt that we should present in both formats. Janiece and Margie presented a good format for staff of: completed, ongoing and future status. This could replace the section of the strategic plan with 00 dates.
Dave suggested that we try to present the public update from the following categories: patron, staff and facilities. Margie and Janiece will attempt to do this.
Barbara asked that we change the type font for status, so it’s easier to read.
We need to share results of all the staff’s hard work, or they may become disillusioned and not be willing to participate in the future.
In preparing the update, we should also indicate there will be ongoing opportunities for staff participation as work continues – for instance staff training.
Jill indicated we might want to address status updates at the Town Forum, which might include mentioning people who were involved in the action groups with a specific invitation for them to attend. Group agreed that this was a good idea and will incorporate a ten-minute update on a single area of the directions at each upcoming Town Forum.
3. Web Site Action Item Status for Strategic Planning Process
Group agreed to modify the initial statement utilizing Margie’s suggested wording with a few small changes:
Strategic planning in the University Libraries is a continuous process involving University faculty, staff and students. The process began in November of 2001, when facilitator/consultant Lou Wetherbee worked with a Core Planning Group (CPG) of volunteers and nominees from the Libraries to set initial goals and directions. The process was complemented by focus groups with faculty, environmental scans conducted by staff, follow-up meetings with staff to further refine and define the goals, and action groups focusing on the major directions. The Core Planning Group continues to guide and direct the efforts identified in the original process and work with others to set goals to better meet the research, teaching and service needs of the University and community. CPG coordinates the planning process by pursuing action items, generating ideas and giving voice to ideas originated by library staff. We welcome your feedback and suggestions for this process. Please e-mail your comments <link to CPG II (III) listserv>. [Jill will modify this list so that we can receive e-mails via open posting, but fixed membership.]
Barbara mentioned that with Presidential planning we may have to revisit this statement to make changes geared towards the President’s goals. For instance, we may need to look at a longer term plan. An appropriate response to long-term planning may be, “While the libraries try to look ahead, changes in the libraries happen very quickly and we will respond as quickly and appropriately as needed”.
4. Review of the Strategic Planning Process
Continuation with Foundations 2, Collaborative Relationships:
Host a variety of forums to showcase library resources and faculty achievements. Judy Adams-Volpe’s report indicates that we are attempting to address this need. Link to Director of External Affairs webpage. It does not appear that there is a protocol (http://ublib.bufflao.edu/libraries/ext/), for peer review of exhibits. This issue may be addressed via APT and FEC. Nancy to check APT website as well as different/appropriate library webpages. CPG complete.
Work with MyUB to market the resources of the University Libraries. CPG complete. Link to MyUB information pages.
Solicit and sponsor exhibits, programs and research fairs within the University Libraries. Can use the same link to the Director of University and External Relations webpage. CPG complete.
Moved on to Foundations 2, Commit to an active fund-raising and grantsmanship program reflective of the University Libraries’ mission.
Web pages, done; case statement, not done. The case statement may fall under Judy’s area. Diana will check with Judy as to status. We need to make sure case statement is complete or something “quick and dirty” to present if necessary. We have heard from Jennifer McDonough, Vice President from University Advancement, that the next capital campaign is in the works. We should have something prepared if necessary to quickly demonstrate the libraries need(s).
Nancy reviewed the four funding parameters from the Fundraising subgroup:
a) Establish a budget which will enable effective and active, development/fundraising activities for the University Libraries. A budgetary context is necessary to encourage and facilitate project and program creation and continuation.
b) Inaugurate a budgetary framework. Five percent of yearly contributions received should be used to create an initial budgetary base.
c) Provide seed funding for an initial year and as a baseline of available funding on a continuing basis: $5,000 is recommended.
d) Utilize development funds for such activities and projects as: prospect cultivation and identification; charges for University Development activities such as phone solicitation; creation and printing of documents such as the “Case Statement”; public programs; “thank you” gestures to donors at various levels; and development-related travel.
This item is deferred to Barbara’s office. If Barbara chooses, she will involve MAG. Barbara indicated a need for a development officer to tackle fundraising issues, cultivate prospects, etc.
Margie and Janiece will await Nancy’s updates to the Strategic Planning Progress Chart before moving ahead with their Action Items Status Document.
Next meeting we will move on to deliverables.
5. May Town Forum
May 6th. W. David Penniman, Dean for the School of Informatics, to speak. Barbara will discuss his place on the agenda, as well as coach him for appropriate topics. There were two thoughts about this. 1) David might like to hear about our SWOT, and respond to that topic. Or David may want to go first on the agenda. He could address planning/future directions, development and collaboration. Janiece mentioned how it is important for all who work in the libraries to recognize that development efforts include the importance of cultivating relationships every day, from student assistants to retired and existing staff, as well as patrons.
Consider using SWOT for breakout sessions. Four groups to tackle four areas. Barbara to send finalized report to Voldemar ahead of time for staff review. Need to formulate a series of questions or talking points. Although the report will be finalized, comments/suggestions from staff can be part of our continuing internal efforts. For instance, are there additional items? Do we want to prioritize them, or determine our initial emphasis?
Roles for Town Forum:
- Jill – evaluations
- Stew – facilitator
- Diana – agenda
- Dave – timekeeper
- Mike – recorder, Nancy as backup.
Ben to work with Diana to create breakout sessions.
Margie and Janiece to work on presentation for Talents I, 5-10 minute presentation.
Jill to contact members of the talent groups to let them know their topic will be featured.
E-mail should be sent out earlier that week with updates as far as:
- Net Catalog - Mark
- Storage - Karen
- Aleph - Steve
Next CPG meeting – May 17th, Monday 10:30 – 12:00. Capen 435.
Roles:
- Rick – recorder
- Janiece – agenda
- Sue – timekeeper
- Dave – facilitator
Content provider: Nancy Babb
Comments: lib-staffweb@buffalo.edu
Last update:
10 November, 2004