
Thursday, February 11, 2010
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Orrin Ausen (Bethany Lutheran College), Heather Biederman (Minnesota State University, Mankato), Jan Carey (Hibbing Community College), Carrie Curie (Minnesota State Community and Technical College – Moorhead), Paul Dahl (Department of Health), Todd Digby (MnSCU), Susan Dueis (PALS), Stephen Elfstrand (PALS), Keith Ewing (St. Cloud State University), Sharon Evenson (Vermilion Community College), Michael Kirby (Dakota County Technical College), Jean Kramer (Minnesota State University Moorhead), Adam Marsnik (Normandale Community College), Amy Naughton (Minneapolis College of Art and Design), Diane Pollock (Rochester Community and Technical College), Pam Sukalski (Minnesota West Community and Technical College), Michele Throldahl (PALS), Angela Wortham (St. Cloud State University)
1. Welcome, Introductions and Selection of a Recorder
2. Additions/Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes from the November 12 Meeting
4. PALS Director’s Update (Stephen Elfstrand)
Aleph
Strategic Planning – The following are at the core of strategic planning:
MnPALS Plus 2.0
PALSconnect LINKER
PALSconnect ERM
Open Source ILS
5. MnSCU Update (Todd Digby)
6. Annual Meeting Planning
…Thursday, April 8; location and agenda to be determined.
7. ND and SD Participation in Workdays
…Should our workdays be open to librarians from North and South Dakota?
Librarians from North and South Dakota have expressed interest in attending our workdays. The group discussed pros and cons including space, cost, ways to contact, etc.
Move to open up registration for workdays to ND and SD librarians one week after the start of registration for MnPALS consortium members, if space remains, beginning with the upcoming spring 2010 workdays.
8. User Group Structure
… The consortium currently meets in user groups based on the ILS. What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of basing user groups on library functions or workflow instead?
A long discussion was held about the current structure of user groups, reasons for change, and what a new structure might look like. It was pointed out that there are advantages to meeting as ILS module groups and that there is plenty of material to cover. Groups have already expanded into other areas – some more than others. Reference is not tied to a specific module and is already more of an interest group.
What about larger issues, such as cooperative cataloging, archive management, collection development, libData, on-demand purchasing, distance education services, and library management? These are subjects of interest to consortium members. What structure could allow discussion of these broader issues? Are they better left for discussion by directors, deans, and coordinators? Institutions are competitors. What does this mean for collaboration?
There was a suggestion that this discussion be continued at the upcoming workdays. However, workday agendas are already set. Plus, this question has been brought up multiple times with no action. Now it needs to move forward and get input from Deans and Directors.
Move that the User Council supports the creation of additional interest group(s) to address larger consortium-wide issues.
9. Summary – Report to the Executive Committee – Michael Kirby will report
10. Adjourn
1. Welcome, Introductions and Selection of a Recorder
2. Additions/Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes from the November 12 Meeting
4. PALS Director's Update (Stephen Elfstrand)
5. MnSCU Update (Todd Digby)
6. Annual Meeting Planning
... Thursday, April 8; location and agenda to be determined.
7. ND and SD Participation in Workdays
... Should our workdays be open to librarians from North Dakota and South Dakota?
8. User Group Structure
... The consortium currently meets in user groups based on the ILS. What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of basing user groups on library functions or workflow instead?
9. Report to the Executive Committee
10. Adjourn