ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Revised May 1, 2014
Association of College and Research Libraries
Spring Executive Committee Meeting
Olin Library, Room 301
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, April 2, 2014
8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. C.D.T
Minutes
Present: Trevor Dawes (President), Karen Williams (Vice-President), Steven Bell (Past-President), Douglas
Lehman (Councilor), Cynthia Steinhoff (Budget and Finance Chair), Mary Ellen Davis (ex officio)
Guests: Allison Payne (ACRL Program Coordinator)
1.0 Call to order
Dawes called the meeting to order at 8:55 a.m.
2.0 Opening remarks/review of ground rules
Dawes welcomed the Executive Committee members and thanked them for traveling to St. Louis for the
meeting. He then asked the Executive Committee to review the meeting ground rules included in the agenda and
asked for their active participation to ensure an engaging meeting. He announced that the Executive Committee
will be joined by Information Literacy Competency Standards in Higher Education Task Force Co-Chairs, Craig
Gibson and Trudi Jacobson, via conference call during the afternoon.
3.0 Adoption of the Agenda
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee adopted the agenda as presented.
4.0 Reports
4.1 President’s Report
Dawes directed the Executive committee to his Quarterly Report (Doc 1.1). He stated that he enjoys the
opportunity to engage with members in-person and virtually, which gives him the chance to learn about
local issues. He is looking forward to future visits.
4.2 Vice-President’s Report
Williams began by adding to her report her Midwinter data management activities. She is looking
forward to the upcoming Oklahoma Library Association visit in the fall. The University of North
Carolina at Greensboro is organizing a reception for Academic/Research Librarian of the Year Award
recipient, Tim Bucknall, and wanted an ACRL representative to attend. Mary Ellen will be going to the
reception due to already being in the area for another meeting, so Karen will not attend.
4.3 Past-President’s Report
Bell began by discussing an interview for a blog post he had with The Philadelphia Inquirer reporter,
Susan Snyder, who wrote about closing two University of Pennsylvania branch libraries, the
engineering library and the math, physics, and astronomy library. The article sympathized with
protestors and used a couple of quotations from Bell about why the branch libraries are closing. Bell
noted that the reporter omitted his comments that put the closings in context. Dawes thanked Bell for his
contribution to the blog post.
1
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
The Executive Committee discussed the Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s (MSCHE)
town hall meetings on information literacy, where Steven Miller gave a well written, logical response to
information literacy. Dawes reported that Barbara Jones, director of ALA’s Office of Intellectual
Freedom, and a member of the AAUP’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee had reached out to
see if she could be helpful in advocating for the inclusion of information literacy in the MSCHE
characteristics of excellence. The Executive Committee suggested that if Barbara could influence
AAUP to make a statement about the importance of information literacy, it could be very useful as it
would be faculty making the statement from their perspective, rather than librarians. The focus of such a
statement should be on information literacy, but should also acknowledge librarians’ role in student
learning.
Next Steps: Davis will contact Jones regarding whether AAUP would be interested in making a
statement to MSCHE about the importance of information literacy and the librarians’ critical role in
student learning.
4.4 Councilor’s Report
Lehman began by noting an item dominating the ALA Council: ALA Planning and Budget Assembly
(PBA) survey results from former and current members conducted by Karen Schneider and Aaron
Dobbs and the concern that members no longer understand the goals of PBA.
Lehman also updated the Executive Committee on the concerns about the upcoming 2016 ALA Annual
Conference in Orlando and the Stand-your-ground law. While the ALA Executive Committee reviewed
the concerns, moving the conference would cost $814,000 in penalties, so ALA will instead offer an
educational component on the Stand-your-ground issue, while the conference is in Orlando.
4.5 75th Anniversary Resolution
Lehman referred the Executive Committee to the draft Resolution Honoring the 75th Anniversary of
ACRL (Doc 1.4). Lehman added scholarly communication to the draft after receiving feedback from the
Board on ALA Connect. The Executive Committee suggested the following changes: add scholarly
communication road show, remove national from “National Information Literacy Institute,” and change
references to the national conference to the international conference. On another note about ALA
Council, the Executive Committee agreed that Lehman’s experience drafting this resolution could be
useful for future resolutions honoring deceased librarians. Lehman will present the amended resolution
to the ALA Council.
Discussion: There was no additional discussion.
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee approved the amended draft 75th Anniversary Campaign
Resolution.
Next steps: Lehman will make the discussed amendments and present to the ALA Council at Annual
Conference in Las Vegas.
4.6 Executive Director’s Plan for Excellence Activities Report (PEAR) and Key Performance
Indicators (KPI)
In the interest of time, Davis asked if there were any questions about the written reports. The Executive
Committee noted the lower than expected number of Assessment in Action applicants for the upcoming
cohort. Davis advised that staff were surprised by this too, and will be making efforts to attract more
applicants with increased marketing and outreach efforts.
Davis provided some highlights from her second quarter Plan for Excellence Activities Report (Doc
1.4):
2
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes




ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
Davis is representing ACRL on a national learning initiative that is an IMLS-funded grant
managed by OCLC. IMLS Director Susan Hildredth is interested in reducing duplicate federal
spending. Hildreth hopes that a Coalition for National Learning might be instrumental in
sharing content. A follow-up grant could be developed and submitted in early August.
ACRL Content Strategist Kathryn Deiss is serving as an advisory board member for an
Educopia Nexus IMLS grant project on leadership.
Davis announced that as part of the Nexus grant project, she was invited to attend a meeting at
the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, which is why she will be in
the area for the awards reception Williams mentioned.
Davis reported meeting with ARL Executive Director Elliot Shore and that they verbally agreed
that ACRL could use the ARL statistics survey for another year. Davis repeated her offer for
ACRL to partner with ARL on developing new sets of measures.
Davis discussed ACRL’s contract with Highwire for ACRL journals. Highwire is being sold and may no
longer be a non-profit organization. ACRL will look into other options, such as the Open Journal
System (OJS). Possible concerns with moving to OJS, include making provisions for advertising,
designing an advertisement template, and creating a robust and sophisticated interface for members.
Davis concluded with thanks to ACRL Program Coordinator Allison Payne for her assistance with the
Spring Executive meeting.
5.0 Consent Agenda
5.1 Approval of Fall 2013 Executive Committee Minutes
Motion: That the ACRL Executive Committee approve the minutes from the October 25 and October
26, 2013 meeting.
6.1 Approval of the Establishment of a Library Marketing and Outreach Division-Level Interest
Group
Motion: That the ACRL Executive Committee approve the Establishment of a Library Marketing and
Outreach Division-Level Interest Group.
Action: The consent agenda was approved as presented.
6.0 Data Management Roles for ACRL
The Executive Committee discussed the data management report submitted by ACRL’s Research and Scholarly
Environment Committee at the ACRL Board’s request addressing issues that surfaced during the invitational
forums held at the 2014 Midwinter Meeting.
Recommendation #1 - Have a preconference workshop on data management at ACRL 2015
The Executive Committee discussed the first recommendation and it was advised that ACRL needs to
differentiate what we do compared to others, and fill unique niches. The preconference could serve as a
prototype for future preconferences and workshops. The Executive Committee discussed upcoming data
management webinars hosted by the Digital Curation Interest Group, and the issue of creating a coordinated
marketing plan was expressed. The proposal for a data management preconference at ACRL 2015 would be
guaranteed a slot, as there is a strategic priority on digital curation preconference. The preconference will be
held Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at the Portland Convention Center. It is anticipated that this will be a daylong preconference, which will be scheduled from 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., so that the preconference can be
completed before the first keynote session. The Executive Committee noted that there were weekly if not almost
daily notices of professional development opportunities in this area already underway and recommended that
ACRL not wait for another year to offer a workshop. ACRL should consider what else it could offer before the
2015 Conference.
3
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
Motion: That the ACRL Executive Committee authorize the Research and Scholarly Environment Committee
and Digital Curation Interest Group with other stakeholders to develop and hold a one-day preconference at
ACRL 2015 on data management.
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee approved the Research and Scholarly Environment Committee and
Digital Curation Interest Group together with other stakeholders develop and hold a one-day preconference at
ACRL 2015 on data management.
Next Steps: ACRL Manager of Professional Development Margot Conahan will work with members on
logistical needs of the preconference, as well as help develop additional professional development opportunities
on this topic.
Break: The Executive Committee adjourned for a break at 10:10 a.m. and was called to order at 10:17 a.m.
Recommendation #2 - Add more information on data management to the ACRL Scholarly
Communication Toolkit, including linking to existing resources
The Executive Committee reviewed the report’s second recommendation. The Executive Committee felt this
was an important and logical step to take and looks forward to seeing more content on this topic added to the
Toolkit.
Motion: That the ACRL Executive Committee add more information on data management to the ACRL
Scholarly Communication Toolkit, including linking to existing resources.
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee approved adding more information on data management to the ACRL
Scholarly Communication Toolkit, including linking to existing resources.
Next Steps: ACRL Senior Strategist for Special Initiatives Kara Malenfant will assist with adding more
information on data management to the ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit.
Recommendation #3 - Survey Digital Curation Interest Group (DCIG) members for their needs and
suggestions on data management
The Executive Committee discussed the report’s third recommendation and identified a need for two surveys:
one of DCIG members and one of non-DCIG members. The Executive Committee suggested that a DCIG
member with expertise could work on crafting a survey. It was also suggested that many academic institutions
offer assistance in survey design through the campus assessment office and it would be ideal if that expertise
could be brought to this project.
Motion: That the ACRL Executive Committee approve the recommendation that a needs assessment survey of
member needs, with respect to data management, be developed. Staff will work to identify a lead member to
design and implement a survey with analysis. The outcome will be a report by SPOS or Fall Executive to the
Board.
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee approved the recommendation that a member needs assessment, with
respect to data management, be developed. Staff will work to identify a lead member to design and implement a
survey with analysis. The outcome will be a report by SPOS or Fall Executive to the Board.
Next Steps: ACRL ReSEC Chair Lisa Macklin will work with DCIG and ACRL staff to identify a member to
take the lead on developing a survey.
Recommendation #4 - Create data literacy competency standards
4
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
The Executive Committee began discussion on the report’s fourth recommendation. ACRL President Trevor
Dawes attended a presentation at CNI the day before the Executive Committee meeting about the research on
data management competencies being developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The draft
document indicated considerable overlap with what ACRL might develop. Rather than ACRL starting its own
initiative, it was agreed that Dawes should reach out to ARL to find out if ACRL might join this effort and have
an ACRL member to be appointed to their group.
Next Steps: Trevor Dawes will contact ARL to see if an ACRL member can be added to data literacy standards
work of ARL.
Recommendation #5 - Create professional development opportunities on data literacy
The Executive Board concluded that ACRL will continue to work on professional development opportunities
and welcomes suggestions. Currently, ACRL is offering an online course and a webinar on these topics this
month and next.
7.0 Composition of LRNC
The Executive Committee discussed the importance of having a knowledge-based Board and how a relationship
between the Board and the Leadership Recruitment and Nomination Committee (LRNC) could be beneficial.
There is a need to strengthen this relationship, and it was suggested that a former Board member could be
appointed to the LRNC. There was some concern that serving six consecutive years would be too long. It was
also proposed that a Board member could serve as a member or liaison for the LRNC during his or her final year
on the Board. Other ideas for strengthening the relationship included a mentorship for new Board members and
having an executive session where LRNC members are invited to talk with the Board about potential candidates.
It was suggested that the Board could discuss this topic during the Board meeting at Annual Conference, Board
Orientation, and during SPOS.
Next steps: The Board will discuss the relationship between the Board and LRNC during the Friday morning
update at Annual Conference.
8.0 Budget and Finance
8.1 FY14 2nd Quarter Report
Chair of the Budget & Finance Committee Steinhoff reviewed the Second Quarter report. She advised
that it is still early in the fiscal year to draw conclusions. Both revenue and expenses are down.
Steinhoff noted that C&RL subscriptions’ budget anticipated earnings from the two print issues.
However, the revenue from the September 2013 issue was recognized in FY2013, so we will be short of
budget in FY14. Steinhoff also noted the reduced books sales may partly be a result of ACRL’s books
not being shipped to its approval plan customers when there was a change in personnel at the
distribution center. Sales should increase some with these shipments now going out. Consulting is an
area that could be further developed if ACRL can add to its consultants roster.
Steinhoff began her report on the CHOICE second quarter overview by advising that CHOICE needs to
look at ways to repurpose its products and continuing cost-containment measures. Positive areas for the
CHOICE budget include the increase in online advertising and the popularity of webinars. She added
that while online advertising is increasing, online revenue is not as high as print advertising revenue.
The value of the LTI endowment increased during the second quarter.
8.2 Dashboard Metrics
Steinhoff advised that at the joint Budget & Finance and Board meeting at Midwinter there was an
overall positive response to the Dashboard Metrics. A working group gave additional directions to the
metrics needed resulting in the revised documents the Executive Committee has. It is planned for the
5
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
metrics to be updated quarterly. The Executive Committee liked the revised dashboard very much. They
made a few suggestions including adding webinar data and professional development data, combining
ACRL and CHOICE net lines, and updating the CoPA chart to ensure the graph displayed
proportionally to its members.
There was some clarification needed regarding the ACRL Market Penetration metric. It was unclear if
the chart includes MLS or non-holding MLS members, and the chart was missing about 2,000 people.
The Executive Committee suggested that the chart may be easier to read if the raw numbers were
changed to percents.
The Executive Committee also suggested that in conference years metrics about registration, exhibits
and fundraising could be added.
The Executive Committee discussed if the metrics could be shared with members and placed on the
ACRL website, ACRL Insider, C&RL News’ Annual Report, or other publications. The 75th Anniversary
Campaign metrics will be included online when the campaign starts.
Next steps: Staff will update the Dashboard Metrics as discussed and share with Budget and Finance and
the Board at Annual Conference. Additional suggestions may be sent to Mary Ellen Davis by April 10th.
Break: The Executive Committee adjourned for a lunch break at 11:40 a.m. The meeting was called to order at
1:07 p.m.
8.3 Oberly Award Endowment
Under new ALA policy, all endowments must have a minimum of $50,000 to continue as an
endowment. The STS Oberly Endowment would need to raise more than $25,000 to reach this and STS
did not consider this feasible. STS had a task force studying the issue and a number of ideas were
considered and there was a desire to continue the award. Executive Director Davis met with ALA senior
management and an idea came out of that meeting that STS leadership supported. It was suggested that
ACRL subsume the Oberly endowment into ACRL’s larger endowment. As part of this suggestion,
ACRL would payout $500 every two years for the Oberly award. Steinhoff noted that 3% of rolling
average on interest would be $620 every two years. The Oberly Award would continue as long as there
is interest by STS to continue the award.
Action: The ACRL Executive Committee approved subsuming the Oberly Award endowment into the
larger ACRL endowment and to provide from the ACRL endowment up to $500 biennially to support
giving an award to the winners of the Oberly Award for Bibliography in Agriculture or Natural
Sciences.
The Executive Committee adjourned to Executive Session at 1:18 p.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m.
9.1 update on 75th anniversary: Report out of Executive Session
The Executive Committee was updated on progress toward the silent phase of the 75th Anniversary Campaign.
14.0 Information Literacy Task Force Draft Framework
Before being joined by the Information Literacy Competency Standards in Higher Education Task Force CoChairs, Craig Gibson and Trudi Jacobson, via conference call, the executive committee briefly discussed the
draft framework. The Executive Committee agreed that the addition of graphics would make the document more
accessible. During the online open forums for the draft framework, there has been a lot of positive comments
and excitement in the field after seeing the draft. There had been an issue about proper attribution for some of
the content in the draft framework and Davis reported that she expected this could be resolved fairly readily.
Also mentioned was the upcoming task force meeting in Chicago, which the Board approved at Midwinter.
6
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
After reaching Gibson and Jacobson via conference call, Davis and Dawes thanked them for their time, progress
and continued work on the framework. The Executive Committee relayed that they appreciated the report and
the process the task force was using, especially the phased approach of getting feedback on the draft. Gibson
stated that there have been 67 comments received thus far from individuals, groups and libraries who are
currently discussing the framework. The quality of feedback was quite good. The Executive Committee also
thought the examples helped people better understand the Framework.
The Executive Committee asked how well the term “threshold concepts” was understood based on comments
received. Gibson advised that the task force has been working on this issue and that there may be a need for a
guide, like the original standards. Jacobson added that these concepts are not new. However, the term threshold
concepts is new and the language may be intimidating.
Gibson share that some of the comments are already jumping to implementation questions. People are concerned
with how to teach the framework in libraries, what exercises can be used, and how can they teach part of a
concept in a programmatic way.
The Executive Committee expressed their appreciation for the examples and toolkit had been added.
Jacobson said phase two will be released soon and may include two additional threshold concepts.
The Executive Committee asked about the author attribution issue. Gibson and Jacobson have already discussed
and have reached an agreement. They have decided that each threshold concept will be attributed by title within
the framework.
Gibson and Jacobson advised that planning for the upcoming face-to-face meeting is coming along well. One
threshold concept will be further discussed at this meeting. Kara Malenfant and Mel are currently working on
other parts of the agenda.
The Co-Chairs responded to the suggestion of adding more graphics by stating that they are working on a color
wheel palette and have identified three places where graphics could be used in the framework.
Dawes, on behalf of the entire Executive Committee, thanked Gibson and Jacobson for joining them and
expressed they are pleased with the progress of the Task Force.
10.0 Copyright Education Center Proposal
The Executive Committee revisited the Copyright Education Center proposal developed by Columbia
University, and expressed general support for the proposal. However, they did ask that staff follow up with
James Neal, Vice-President for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia University Libraries,
to get a better understanding of what he hoped associations would contribute to the proposed Center. The
Executive Committee wanted to understand whether he was seeking a financial commitment or in-kind
commitment. The Executive Committee were also not clear on what kind of relationship Columbia might be
seeking with the Sloan Consortium and wondered if the Library Copyright Alliance, of which ACRL is a
member, would have a role in the proposed Center. The Executive Committee agreed that that the Center could
fill a vacuum left by the University of Maryland program ending and they saw the value for librarians in having
access to a copyright expert. The Executive Committee noted that a copyright reference desk has been added to
revised proposal.
Next Steps: Davis will follow up with Jim Neal to clarify his expectations for ACRL’s involvement and to
clarify the potential role of the Sloan Consortium.
7
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
11.0 Assessment Competencies Task Force Consideration
The Executive Committee discussed the request by the Value of Academic Libraries Committee to consider the
creation of the Assessment Competencies for Academic Libraries Task Force. The Value Committee feels that a
task force could develop a list of competencies/skill set needed by academic librarians working on assessment.
The Executive Committee discussed whether the Value Committee should do this, whether this would only
apply to assessment librarians, and how to approach competencies outside of the LIS education. There was some
concern voiced about staff capacity and if a person in assessment could be identified to oversee the process.
There was some background provided on the development of other competencies, including the Proficiencies for
Instruction Librarians and Coordinators and the Competencies (2007) for Special Collections Professionals
(2008). The Executive Committee then felt reassured that this process could go forward and would require less
staff time than the more recent standards developed, e.g., the Standards for Libraries in Higher Education or the
revision to the Information Literacy Competency Standards.
The Executive Committee agreed that the Assessment Discussion Group and the Value Committee would be a
good place to start for getting suggestions for members of the Task Force.
Motion: That the ACRL Board of Directors appoint a Task Force on Standards for Proficiencies for Assessment
Librarians and Coordinators with the understanding that there will be outreach to various groups to identify
members of the Task Force.
Action: The ACRL Board of Directors approved the appointment of a Task Force on Standards for Proficiencies
for Assessment Librarians and Coordinators with the understanding that there will be outreach to various groups
to identify members of the Task Force.
Next Steps: Dawes and Williams will reach out to the Value of Academic Libraries Committee and Chair of
Assessment Discussion Group for potential members.
Break: The Executive Committee adjourned for a break at 3:03 p.m. and was called to order at 3:14 p.m.
12.0 Board Orientation
The Executive Committee discussed the upcoming two-hour Board Orientation at Annual Conference. They
reviewed the agenda and discussed the proposed new Board webinar on work plans. They discussed the
important role that Board members have as liaison to committees developing work plans, which are due August
1. The Executive Committee agreed that orientation on committee work plans was needed either before or
immediately after Annual Conference.
The Budget and Finance Committee could have a virtual orientation between Annual Conference and SPOS,
since it would be difficult to complete in fifteen minutes, thus giving time at Annual Conference for work plans.
The Executive Committee agreed that 3.5 Key Performance Indicators can be removed from the agenda. Agenda
item 4.1 Typical Schedule at Annual Conference/Midwinter could be moved under 7.1 Travel. There was some
concern about agenda item 4.6 Liaisons, as that can be a difficult role for new Board members. They will need
to engage with Chairs about the workplans. It would be ideal to include more time for action plans at Annual
Conference. Irene Herold was recommended to speak on this at Board Orientation.
The topic of creating a Board Buddy was discussed. The Board Buddy could give an introduction to the liaison
role, discuss work plans, and supplement information received during the orientation. In the past, there was a lot
of variance in understanding of the role of liaisons. The Executive Committee agreed it would be good to try the
Board Buddy with the incoming Board members.
8
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
Next Steps: Bell and Dawes agreed to share their orientation notes with Williams. Staff will update the agenda
with the suggestions discussed and share with the Presidents.
15.0 SPOS Planning Discussion
The Executive Committee discussed the agenda for the upcoming SPOS meeting in Chicago. One day (typically
Friday) is spent working with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the goal-area committees. There was a discussion on
identifying the best topic for the Board to discuss at the SPOS. The Executive Committee asked themselves
what is the big idea? What do we need to do to meet member needs and today’s challenges? Ideas included
member engagement, how the role of reviews in today’s acquisitions world has changed since CHOICE’s
inception 50 years ago, how ACRL might best serve different communities (as there is a trend in hiring nonMLIS staff for functional roles), program planning for the President, and special initiatives and/or content areas,
such as information literacy.
Other possibilities brainstormed included reviewing an environmental scan, trends document, or strategic plan.
During the second day, a facilitator could help the group identify the next big topic.
The Executive Committee said that the focus should be on strategic thinking and big ideas with a de-emphasis
on finances as ACRL can be thinking about how to invest its net asset balances in new initiatives that help the
profession. This is difference than managing annual operating revenues and expenses. There is a need to find
ways to spark creativity for generating revenue from new sources.
There was some discussion on potential facilitators at SPOS. The facilitator should be identified in the next six
weeks or so if the Board wants to be sure individuals are available.
16.0 Leadership Council at ALA Annual 2014
Due to time constraints, the Presidents will discuss plans Leadership Council during their next phone call.
17.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
18.0 Plus Delta
At its 2011 Strategic Planning and Orientation Session, the Board determined that it will evaluate each meeting
briefly by identifying what went particularly well and what can be changed to improve future meeting
effectiveness.
Plus Items
 Beautiful facility, good food. Great meeting space and support. (Thanks to Trevor, Jeff, and Washington
University)
 Trevor’s preparation – most helpful
 Good flexibility on agenda adjustment
 Phone call-ins to have experts join the conversation
 ALA President-elect Courtney Young joining Executive Committee for lunch
 Allison’s document preparation
 Great ideas about Board orientation
Delta Items
 Some difficulty staying on time
 Time management needs to improve
 Agenda could be clear on which items are discussion vs. actions
9
Draft 2014 Spring Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
ACRL AC14 FYI-X
Revised May 1, 2014
19.0 Adjournment
Dawes thanked the Executive Committee members and ACRL staff for their work. The meeting adjourned at
4:04.
Comments submitted after the meeting - Representatives Report from Steven Bell
Due to time constraints Bell offered to submit written comments on the representative reports rather than give
an oral report during the meeting. Below are Bell’s comments.
This is a mostly good news report. First, this is a successful submission period. There are more reports than have
been received in several past Board meetings. It may be that our representatives are getting more accustomed to
their reporting responsibilities. The report template is no doubt helping in this capacity. I believe there were four
or five reports last time. This time we received 10 (2 from Jim Tehila). So this is encouraging. Second, having
reviewed the reports I find no items that require immediate action by ACRL – just one or two items for further
consideration.
Your board packet has my summary (which I will summarize below) plus the actual submitted reports:
Advocacy Coordinating Group – Divisions share their advocacy efforts in this Group. Our representative
needs a pipeline to our updated advocacy activity so that she can share it with the group. Perhaps Kara can reach
out to her to let her know the best way to do that. She should also stay in touch with the chair of Professional
Values. The representative can learn how to gather the information so she can do the legwork.
Library Education Assembly – the LIS accreditation standards are being revised. Does ACRL want to
comment (if there is still time) – and could our LIS Interest Group be asked to look into this.
OIF – Not much here. Working on a privacy toolkit and update of the IF manual. No report on state legislation
that could impact academic libraries (e.g., recent South Carolina legislation)
Website Advisory – There appears to be a website issue with ALA IT group (related to moving to a Drupal
platform). What does MED know about this?
IFLA Social Sciences Section Study Committee – Other than a general advisory on the importance of paying
attention to global social science library issues, there’s nothing with implications for ACRL.
Committee of Cataloging – Nothing of significance for ACRL. Should our representative be connecting with
the new Tech Services IG?
LC CIP – Nothing of significance for ACRL.
YALSA – No significant implications. They picked the 25 outstanding books for college bound students.
Perhaps we should publicize this in an ACRL Insider blog post.
Next Steps: ACRL Senior Strategist for Special Initiatives Kara Malenfant will reach out to Advocacy
Coordinating Group with suggestions on how to better update the ALA Advocacy Coordinating Group.
10