Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

Working Group on CUWL Subgroups

Final Report

Approved by CUWL on January 24, 2007

Members of the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups:

Valerie Malzacher, UW-River Falls
Paul Moriarty, UWSA - OLIT
Mary Rieder, UW-Colleges
Bob Rose (Chair), UW-Eau Claire

With the assistance of Lorie Docken, UWSA – OLIT, and Jana Reeg-Steidinger, UW-Stout


INTRODUCTION

The Working Group on the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL) Subgroups was formed in August, 2005, to address the perceived need for UW System library staffs to be more connected with one another.  While various subgroups existed to address specific concerns, such as collection development or library automation, other groups felt left out of the process.  UW directors wanted to encourage enhanced communication and cooperation among the UW libraries.  Additionally, it was becoming increasingly difficult for the UW-System Office of Learning and Information Technology (OLIT) to provide oversight for system-wide initiatives due to that office’s staffing level.

Specifically, the Working Group was charged at looking at such issues as:

  • Networking:  who needs to network and how is this best accomplished by the various subgroups
  • Communication:  1) how do the subgroups communicate with each other, with CUWL, and with OLIT staff ; 2) how do CUWL and OLIT communicate
  • Advocacy: who speaks for the various, detailed needs of each functional area among the UW System libraries and brings needs to the attention of CUWL when necessary
  • Membership: who should be represented on each subgroup and what constitutes a viable group
  • Structure:  what form should subgroups take and who is responsible for what
  • Currently non-existent groups: which groups have no group representation but have a need for representation
  • Issues:  at what point do issues need to be brought to CUWL; what needs to come to CUWL and what decisions can be handled by the subgroup
  • Support:  what support will be required at the UW System level and at each campus level; is it reasonable considering workload and recent budget and staff cuts

 

THE PROCESS

The Working Group began its deliberations in October, 2005, and quickly realized that its charge was both broader and more complex than originally perceived. The committee reviewed the current status of the various subgroups, as they understood it, and articulated some of the problems and issues associated with the current structure.  Those issues and concerns initially included the fact that while most mailing lists and listservs have worked relatively effectively, chat rooms have not; that there perhaps needed to be broader representation on some groups but that not all groups needed to have representatives from all campuses; that sometimes existing groups cannot adequately address issues when those issues overlap the responsibilities of other functional areas represented by other CUWL groups, that it’s not always clear how issues might come to the attention of CUWL; that groups may not feel sufficiently empowered to develop their own agendas; and that some groups meet without being formally recognized as groups.  A major source of frustration among most parties centered around the issue of communication – with line librarians not always being well-informed of CUWL actions and decisions, with subgroups not always adequately communicating with CUWL, and not all parties to decisions having the opportunity to provide input into those decision-making processes.  After considering these issues, the effort to restructure CUWL subgroups focused on key factors:  the cross functional nature of certain library initiatives, the need for improved communication both from and to CUWL, and the ability of our subgroups to work strategically in our rapidly expanding information world.  The Working Group’s goal—to develop a structure that is both responsive and strategic—ultimately led us to the  recommendation to create four coordinating committees that reflect  broad issues in the areas of digital collections and repositories, collections and resource sharing, library technology, and user services.

The Working Group realized from its preliminary discussions that it lacked sufficient information to fulfill its charge adequately.  It therefore decided to undertake a survey of members of existing CUWL standing committees, of OLIT staff, and members of other potential groups. That survey was eventually expanded to all librarians from the UW libraries and to support staff members responsible for major functional areas.  Additionally, it was agreed to conduct a systematic review of existing groups to determine their functionality and effectiveness and to gain a better understanding of their charges.

The Web survey was sent out in December of 2005 but the deadline date was extended after the January CUWL meeting to allow additional input from two campuses with limited or no participation in the initial survey.   The survey provided some good base data that the Working Group considered in its deliberations.  A complete analysis of the survey results as well as a copy of the survey questions is included in the appendices to this report.

Reviews of existing subgroups were conducted by Working Group members, using existing documentation and/or direct contacts with the groups in question.  In both cases, the results were fairly inconclusive although the existing group review did reveal additional problems, such as a lack of formal reporting from groups, not posting or otherwise making available minutes of their meetings; and even in some cases groups having either no charge or a not very clearly articulated charge.

While the survey was being devised, distributed, and analyzed, the committee continued its work in terms of developing principles and expectations for subgroups and developing guidelines for the appointment of groups.  In addition, it began researching how other system groups similar to CUWL were organized to determine if there were similar approaches that might work for CUWL.  This was accomplished through reviewing available documents on the web and through personal contacts.  The system that seemed to have the most applicability to the UW situation was the California State University system and their organization was reviewed in some detail.

As it was gathering the above information, the Working Group was approached with an idea for a more radical restructuring of CUWL, an idea that caused the Working Group to begin thinking in new directions.  At the January, 2006, CUWL meeting, CUWL members expressed an openness to considering a new structure for the way in which CUWL operates - and the Working Group went on from there.  After finishing its data collection, the Working Group developed the enclosed recommendations for a new CUWL structure that would encompass four major coordinating committees: a System-Wide Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee, a System-Wide Collections and Resource Sharing Initiatives Coordinating Committee, a System-Wide Library Technology Initiatives Coordinating Committee, and a System-Wide User Services Initiatives Coordinating Committee.  This structure creates fewer groups reporting directly to CUWL, but those groups have greater responsibility for strategic planning as well as for dealing with operational issues.  They are also more closely integrated with CUWL, resulting in improved efficiency and communication.  Detailed information on the responsibilities and structure of those four committees – as well as a fuller discussion of the rationale for that structure is included in the section on Working Group Recommendations.

Following the distribution of the report to CUWL and its subgroups, the Working Group actively solicited input from them concerning its recommendations.  The initial reaction from CUWL was very positive and the Working Group received a number of suggestions for improving its recommendations.  The Chair of the Working Group met with the Collection Development Committee (CDC) and also communicated with the chair of the University of Wisconsin System Archives Council (UWSAC).  The Working Group received formal responses from the CDC, the Library Automation Managers (LAMs), and from UWSAC, all of which are included in the appendices to this report.  Incorporated into this final report are many of the suggestions we received from the various groups, though the basic recommended structure remains the same. 

The Working Group continued to meet and discuss the issues and the suggestions received, prior to the submission of this final report in October, 2006.  The report was discussed extensively at the October 5-6, 2006 CUWL meeting.  CUWL charged the Executive Committee to make additional changes to the report to reflect the discussion at the CUWL meeting, particularly related to existing functional resource groups and how they can continue to play a role in the CUWL subgroup structure.  Following an open comment period, the Executive Committee continued to refine the recommendations.  Because the recommendations in the report have a broad reach and effect the underpinnings of the CUWL organization, a final vote on the report was deferred to the January 2007 CUWL meeting.

 

WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

Rationale for Committee Structure

In looking for ways to enable CUWL committees to work more effectively, the Working Group tried to accomplish a number of things.  We wanted to develop a system that would ensure excellent communication between CUWL and the committees, between OLIT and the committees, among the committees themselves, and between the committees and affected constituencies within the UW system.  We also wanted to develop a committee structure that would allow OLIT staff to manage the administrative workload related to CUWL initiatives.  Of equal importance to the foregoing, we wanted to create a structure that would as easily allow ideas and initiatives to percolate upwards as to be directed downwards from CUWL.

To ensure improved communication between CUWL and the committees, each committee will have a CUWL member as an ex officio member of the committee.  Likewise, during his or her term, the chair will serve as an ex officio member of CUWL.  While we realize this represents a very significant – and added - time commitment on the part of the committee chair, we believe the improved communication that should result from this arrangement will make it worthwhile.  We anticipate that the committee chair will make regular reports on the committee’s work and progress on various projects at each CUWL meeting.   This arrangement will also help to ensure the chair’s holistic understanding of CUWL activities and how her or his committee’s work fits within that broader scope of activities.  The CUWL member can help bring an administrative viewpoint to the committee’s work and also ensure that CUWL’s  intentions are clearly understood.   A more formal reporting structure is outlined in the section on principles and expectations.

We recommend that the four committees alternate in attending the system-wide joint conferences of the IT and related groups - Information Technology Management Council (ITMC),  Learning Technology Development Council (LTDC), Educational Media Technology Council (EMTC), CUWL, etc. – that is typically held in the fall.  They will, of course, be meeting on a regular basis throughout the year, whether in person or via teleconferences or other means of communication.  Additionally, an annual conference of system librarians described elsewhere will provide other opportunities for face to face meetings.

It should be understood that we do not see the committee members themselves carrying out their charge in isolation.  We believe there may be instances where they will want to form separate subcommittees or task forces to work on particular issues that will bring in others from outside the group.  Likewise, we believe that one committee might work with another to form a joint task force to address a particular issue.   In short, we anticipate that system-wide projects may very well be initiated by the coordinating committees - either working alone or in tandem -  even though they will report to CUWL and will also act upon CUWL requests and recommendations to address particular issues.  We believe this approach will help to encourage creative and innovative approaches to problems and issues encountered across the system and empower the committees to seek solutions and to develop innovative responses in a timely and active manner.  While coordinating committees are encouraged to develop innovative projects and solutions to problems on their own, any initiative with system-wide budgetary or implementation concerns would still need to be brought to CUWL for its approval.

CUWL always has the option of creating task forces or working groups, in addition to these coordinating committees and indeed will have to do so whenever it is time to update the CUWL Strategic Directions.  When formed, all coordinating committees, task forces, and working groups will have formal, written charges. 

Principles and Expectations for Coordinating Committees

We recommend the adoption of the following set of principles and expectations for CUWL coordinating committees:

1. Each campus will have at least one representative on at least one of the four coordinating committees.

2. All coordinating committees are expected to be open to ideas from library staff across the System and to solicit input from them as part of a decision-making process, e.g., when decisions are to be made about electronic resource subscriptions, members of the Collection Development Committee, serving as a resource group to the Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee, will be asked for their input.

3. Coordinating committees may appoint task forces or working groups to undertake particular projects, as they deem necessary.  In addition, coordinating committees are expected to work cooperatively with other coordinating committees and, as necessary, to appoint joint task forces or working groups to accomplish particular goals.

4. Coordinating committees will not include representatives from every campus.  Rather, members will be chosen to represent the various functional areas that are vital to the successful functioning of the coordinating committee.

5. Each coordinating committee should have at least one member from a doctoral campus, with the remaining members from comprehensive universities and, when possible and appropriate, college and faculty representatives.  In most cases, there will be representation from doctoral, comprehensive, and college campuses.

6. When appointing coordinating committees, some attempt at geographic balance should be made.  When making appointments to the four major coordinating committees, functional responsibility and experience will be considered.

7. All coordinating committees are expected to take active roles in developing their own agendas as well as to respond to requests for action from CUWL.

8. All coordinating committees will post their minutes to the CUWL website.

9. Reports to CUWL from coordinating committees will be written as well as oral, and shared prior to scheduled meetings.

10. Each coordinating committee will provide an annual summary report.

11. Each coordinating committee’s charge will be reviewed at least every 3 years.

Nominating Pool

Each campus and the Colleges shall forward names of library staff to be considered for appointments to the four Coordinating Committees.  Because of the need for functional and campus balance, each campus may nominate up to two individuals for each committee.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Coordinating Committees

We recommend the creation of four committees:

System-Wide Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee

This coordinating committee will oversee the cooperative development and growth of digital initiatives within the University of Wisconsin Libraries.  This cooperation will be exemplified by such initiatives as the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections and the MINDS@UW project as well as other cooperative ventures.  The committee will be responsible for assessing the efficacy of existing efforts, gathering information and recommending new efforts to meet changing needs, recommending funding for existing and new cooperative digital projects, cooperating with other statewide or regional digitization efforts, such as Wisconsin Heritage Online, and working towards the further creation and development of shared system-wide digital collections.

Membership:

The committee shall consist of nine voting members, representing doctoral, comprehensive, and college campuses to serve three-year staggered terms and to be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee.  Membership should include representatives with backgrounds in archives, automation, digital projects, public, and technical services, and shall also include at least one faculty member.   There shall be two ex officio members, representing CUWL and UW System administration.  The chair shall be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee to a one-year term, after a minimum of one year’s service on the committee, and may be re-appointed to a second one-year term. The chair of this committee will serve in an ex officio capacity as a member of CUWL.

Resource persons with particular expertise on matters being discussed by the committee shall be invited to attend meetings, as appropriate.  Specifically, it is expected that the committee will consult, when appropriate, with individuals working with archives and in Area Research Centers in UW-System libraries.  Additionally, the committee may appoint task forces or working groups to undertake particular projects.  The committee is expected to work cooperatively with other coordinating committees and, as necessary, to appoint joint task forces or working groups to accomplish particular goals.

Charge:

Encourage the cooperative development and growth of digital collections in the UW libraries.  Specifically, to:

  • Oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for shared digital collections within the University of Wisconsin Libraries.
  • Analyze needs of the UW Libraries for additional digital initiatives.
  • Refine decision-making benchmarks for additions to existing digital initiatives
  • Recommend funding for additions to existing digital initiatives or the creation of new digital initiatives.
  • Cooperate with and coordinate activities with other state-wide digital initiatives such as Wisconsin Heritage Online.
  • Encourage further cooperative efforts in sharing information and developing local or regional digital collections.
  • With input from technical services and automation staff, develop policies and procedures to enhance access to UW System digital collections.
    Report periodically to CUWL and on the CUWL website the proceedings of the meetings and reports on its efforts.

 

System-Wide Collections and Resource Sharing Initiatives Coordinating Committee

This coordinating committee will oversee the cooperative development of the University of Wisconsin libraries’ collections and encourage and oversee their sharing of collections to become “One System, One Library.”   This cooperation will be exemplified by such initiatives as cooperative purchasing of library materials, including databases; cooperative contracting; and sharing of both physical and virtual resources through the use of Interlibrary Loan, document delivery, Universal Borrowing, or other services.  This committee will be responsible for assessing the efficacy of these efforts, gathering information, and recommending changes or new policies to meet the goal of a shared system-wide collection.

Membership:

The committee shall consist of nine voting members, representing doctoral, comprehensive, and college campuses, to serve three-year staggered terms and to be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee.  Collection development, access services, and user services staff shall be members of the committee.  There shall be three ex officio members, representing CUWL, UW System administration, and WiLS.   The chair shall be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee to a one-year term, after a minimum of one year’s service on the committee, and may be re-appointed to a second one-year term. The chair of this committee will serve in an ex officio capacity as a member of CUWL.

Resource persons with particular expertise on matters being discussed by the committee shall be invited to attend meetings, as appropriate. Specifically, it is expected that the committee will consult, when appropriate, with librarians involved with collection development and resource sharing in UW-System libraries. Additionally, the committee may appoint task forces or working groups to undertake particular projects.  The committee is expected to work cooperatively with other coordinating committees and, as necessary, to appoint joint task forces or working groups to accomplish particular goals.

The Collection Development Committee will serve as a Resource Group to the Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee, and will advise on matters related to the development of the Shared Electronic Collection and other matters related to collection development as determined by the Coordinating Committee.

Charge:

Encourage actively cooperative collection building and resource sharing among UW libraries.  Specifically, to:

  • Oversee the development and implementation of a plan for shared collections and resource sharing generally, in accord with the University of Wisconsin Libraries’ Strategic Directions
  • Analyze needs of the UW libraries for shared electronic resources
  • Recommend to CUWL, with the advice of appropriate constituencies including the Collection Development Committee, the databases or other electronic resources for which the Shared Electronic Collection funds should be used
  • Develop process to assess duplicative collections and to identify gaps in collections across the UW System; develop means to address those duplicated collections or gaps
  • Develop benchmark criteria for decision-making in terms of cooperative purchasing of resources as well as resource sharing services; review, revise, or update criteria to meet changing needs.
  • Oversee the process of contract development for system-wide purchasing of library materials and make recommendations to CUWL
  • Assess the use and effectiveness of primary vendor and other system-wide contracts
  • Periodically review and analyze the effectiveness of resource-sharing services, e.g., Universal Borrowing or ILLiad, and further develop resource-sharing policies with the advice of appropriate constituencies; recommend changes in or the adoption of new resource-sharing policies and procedures to CUWL as appropriate.
  • Analyze and seize opportunities for additional means by which to improve the collections of the UW libraries and the services through which those collections are made accessible to UW constituencies.
    Report periodically to CUWL and on the CUWL website the proceedings of its meetings and reports on its efforts.

 

System-Wide  Library Technology Initiatives Coordinating Committee

This coordinating committee will oversee the technology-related initiatives approved by CUWL for implementation across UW System Libraries.  Initiatives include current projects, such as Voyager, BadgerCat, SFX, MetaLib, and ILLiad, as well as any others that may be undertaken to implement technology-based projects in libraries system wide.  The committee will develop policies and procedures related to software implementation and upgrades, hardware hosting and maintenance, access to the UW System Shared Electronic Collection, records management compliance, and consistent implementation of technologies throughout System libraries.  This committee will also be responsible for assessing the effectiveness of technology-based library initiatives and recommending changes or enhancements so that System-wide projects allow libraries to further the UW Libraries’ vision and strategic directions.

Membership:

The committee shall consist of nine voting members, representing doctoral, comprehensive, and college campuses to serve three-year staggered terms and to be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee.  Library systems and technology-based projects impact various functional areas of libraries; therefore, librarians involved in library automation, technical services, user services, and electronic resource management shall be members of this committee.  A member of CUWL and a member of UW System administration shall serve as ex officio members of this committee.  The chair shall be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee to a one-year term, after a minimum of one year’s service on the committee, and may be re-appointed to a second one-year term.  The committee chair will serve in an ex officio capacity as a member of CUWL.

Resource persons with particular expertise on matters being discussed by the committee shall be invited to attend meetings, as appropriate.  Specifically, it is expected that the committee will consult, when appropriate, with librarians involved with library systems and other technology-based projects in UW-System libraries. Additionally, the committee may appoint task forces or working groups to undertake particular projects.  The committee is expected to work cooperatively with other coordinating committees and, as necessary, to appoint joint task forces or working groups to accomplish particular goals.

The Library Automation Managers (LAMS) will serve as a resource group to the System-Wide Library Technology Initiatives Coordinating Committee and will advise on matters related to library systems and technology-based library projects as deemed appropriate by the Coordinating Committee.

Charge:

Oversee the implementation, maintenance, upgrade, evaluation, and full utilization of technology-based products and projects across all UW System libraries.  Specifically, to:

  • Review and approve implementation plans and timetables and upgrade schedules for new and existing technology-based products and systems.
  • Review and approve policies, procedures, and service level agreements for library products that are hosted and maintained by organizations such as the UW-Madison Division of Information Technology.
  • Develop policies and procedures in technical services and other functional areas which enhance cooperation in acquiring and accessing resources.
  • With input from appropriate public services and technical services staff, analyze the effectiveness of current system-wide technology products and recommend upgrades or changes to maximize effectiveness.
  • Consistently implement and configure technology-based products across the System, to promote the “One System One Library” philosophy; monitor compliance with system-wide policies and procedures.
  • Share expertise and creative uses of technology-based systems to maximize the efficacy of our shared systems across all UW libraries
  • Propose new technology-based projects that will advance the vision and the strategic directions outlined by the UW Libraries.
  • Coordinate activities with other CUWL coordinating committees when their projects involve technology-based systems and services
  • Report periodically to CUWL and on the CUWL website the proceeding of its meetings and reports on its efforts.

 

System-Wide User Services Initiatives Coordinating Committee

This coordinating committee will oversee user services initiatives across the UW System that fulfill the UW System Libraries strategic directions related to reference services, information literacy, and distance learning.  This committee will coordinate initiatives such as promoting the effective use of online resources both on and off-campus; developing orientation and training materials related to common library systems such as Voyager, ILLiad, SFX/MetaLib, and BadgerCat; promoting cooperative programs to serve distance education students; promoting the use of library resources and services through campus-wide systems such as D2L; and sharing best practices throughout System libraries.

Membership:

The committee shall consist of nine voting members, representing doctoral, comprehensive, and college campuses to serve three-year staggered terms and to be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee.  Reference, instruction, distance education librarians, and archivists shall be members of this committee.  There shall be two ex officio members, representing CUWL and UW System administration.   Resource persons with particular expertise on matters being discussed by the committee shall be invited to attend meetings, as appropriate.  The chair shall be appointed by the CUWL Executive Committee to a one-year term, after a minimum of one year’s service on the committee, and may be re-appointed to a second one-year term.  The chair of this committee will serve in an ex officio capacity as a member of CUWL.

Resource persons with particular expertise on matters being discussed by the committee shall be invited to attend meetings, as appropriate.  Specifically, it is expected that the committee will consult, when appropriate, with librarians involved with user services in UW-System libraries.  Additionally, the committee may appoint task forces or working groups to undertake particular projects.  The committee is expected to work cooperatively with other coordinating committees and, as necessary, to appoint joint task forces or working groups to accomplish particular goals.

Charge:

Investigate and develop effective and innovative programs that promote the use of library resources and services, both on- and off-campus, across the UW System.   Specifically, to:

  • Develop initiatives that promote the effective use of shared electronic resources across the System
  • Develop cooperative programs and common approaches to serving the library needs of distance education students
  • Develop and/or share orientation and training materials related to common library systems such as Voyager, ILLiad, SFX/MetaLib, and BadgerCat
  • Investigate and recommend innovative, technology based approaches to providing reference services to students and faculty in a distributed learning environment
  • Promote the system-wide adoption of the WAAL Information Literacy Competencies and Criteria for Academic Librarians in Wisconsin and the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education
  • Cooperate and collaborate in the development of teaching tools, such as online tutorials, that promote the effective use of libraries and library resources
  • Promote programs that help the UW libraries become more accessible to UW alumni, Wisconsin citizens, other educational institutions, businesses, and government agencies
  • Coordinate activities with other CUWL coordinating committees when their projects involve the development of systems or programs that promote the use of library resources and services
  • Report periodically to CUWL and on the CUWL website the proceedings of its meetings and reports on its efforts.

 

Resource Groups

All coordinating committees will consult appropriate staff throughout the System, when developing initiatives or policy recommendations.  These staff, generally working in similar functional positions, will be considered resource groups under the subgroup restructuring.  The members of these groups benefit from regular communication with one another and information sharing regarding procedural issues and best practices.  They can inform the work of the coordinating committees, and can be called upon to provide input, to meet with, or to bring issues to the coordinating committees. Additionally, members of these resource groups may choose to communicate or meet with one another upon their own initiative. 

 

UWSAC

In gathering information about the work of the UW System Archives Council, it became clear that much of its work revolved around the relationship with the Wisconsin Historical Society and its Area Research Centers.  In addition to Area Research Center operations, however, there are operations related to archives that many members of the UW System Archives Council manage in their libraries.  Prior to the early 2000’s, UWSAC was not a CUWL committee, although it had a loose relationship to CUWL.   We recommend that UWSAC continue its historical relationship with the Wisconsin Historical Society. As a member of CUWL, the Director of the WHS Library-Archives Division, or his designee, will report regularly to CUWL regarding UWSAC meetings, initiatives, and activities.  Members of UWSAC, in conjunction with the Director of the Wisconsin Historical Society Library-Archives Division, shall develop a formal charge for the group for review by CUWL. 

 

Communication

We recommend the creation of 4 listservs, one for each committee, to deal with topics of interest to and/or related to the committee’s charge.  All committee members will belong to their respective listserv, but listservs will also be open for membership to any interested member of the UW System library community.  Listserv members can use the listserv not only to learn about committee actions and activities but to communicate their ideas on those items and to bring issues of interest to the attention of the committee and to colleagues across the UW system.   We expect that technical issues will also be addressed on these listservs but that not all listserv members will be interested in all such messages.  Carefully worded subject lines will, however, allow those not interested in a particular topic to delete such messages easily.  

There will also be additional listservs maintained for DoIT and Atlas-hosted services (for issues related to the Hub, Ex Libris, and ILLiad, respectively), and for resource groups such as the CDC and LAMs.  These listservs will be maintained for technical discussions only.  Policy discussions  will be addressed to the appropriate Coordinating Committee listserv.

The majority of respondents to our survey felt that telephone conference calls, listservs, and WISLINE/Web conferences were the most effective way to hold meetings or to communicate when face-to-face meetings are not possible.  The Working Group encourages the continued use of such communication modes but believes careful attention should be paid to other developing technologies.  While at present only a small number of respondents felt that instant messaging was effective, that may change over the next few years.

 

Annual UW Libraries Conference

To further facilitate the sharing of information and development of ideas and initiatives in a face-to-face environment, we recommend that there be an annual UW System Library meeting, open to all librarians across the System.  Held in the summer, the meeting will include both general and breakout sessions encompassing a variety of topics of interest to librarians working in both public and technical areas in libraries.  Representatives from the four Coordinating Committees will plan and execute the meeting.  This meeting will be held in addition to any face-to-face meetings the Coordinating Committees hold individually.

 

Implementation

We recommend that this new plan be implemented in stages.  The committee appointment process will begin in Spring 2007.  The chairs of the Coordinating Committees will be appointed in time for them to join the spring, 2007 CUWL meeting to become more familiar with its workings prior to the official start of the committees.  We recommend that the initial chairs of the four Coordinating Committees meet with members of the Executive Committee and the four CUWL representatives to those committees for an “orientation” during spring, 2007 that will clarify CUWL’s expectations and insure a common understanding of their respective charges, how they might work together, how they will communicate with librarians across the UW-System, and other issues of concern.  That meeting will also include a review of the UW Libraries’ Strategic Directions and how that document will help guide committee actions.  The new coordinating committees will begin their formal appointments in July 2007.  Existing standing committees and task forces will continue to pursue initiatives related to their current charges through June 2007.  In July, formal communication regarding UW System library initiatives will be between CUWL, OLIT, and the coordinating committees.  We believe this timetable will provide an adequate transition period to help ensure the success of the new structure.

 

Assessment

If adopted, this new organizational structure should be formally assessed to determine whether or not it should continue or if another structure should be put in place.  We recommend that CUWL appoint a separate working group to undertake this assessment, with representation from the four coordinating committees included in its membership, in the 08/09 fiscal year with a final report due to CUWL at its May, 2009, meeting.  Should the decision be made to discontinue the structure, the same or a different task force should be charged with devising a new structure.

 

CUWL Operating Procedures

If the changes recommended by the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups are adopted, the CUWL Operating Procedures will need to be updated.  Since it has been several years since the Operating Procedures were reviewed systematically, it is probably time to review them regardless of the action taken on the working group’s recommendations.

 

Additional Issues

One issue that will remain unresolved by the work of this committee relates to the issue of enforceability of decisions.  When CUWL makes a decision about a system-wide issue, how binding is that decision and if members – of subgroups or individual campuses - do not adhere to that decision, what does that mean for the concept of “One System, One Library?”  In some instances, some campuses have decided not to follow guidelines or principles endorsed by CUWL.  In some cases, that decision was made because of local political concerns.  In other cases, it was because of a basic disagreement with the decision that was made.  Should actions be monitored to ensure compliance with System-wide agreements?  If so, who should be responsible for that monitoring?  The Working Group believes this issue exceeds the scope of its charge but recommends that CUWL as a larger group begin consideration of its implications.

 

Appendices

Appendix A:  Charge to Working Group

Appendix B:  Timeline

Appendix C:  Existing CUWL Subgroups

Appendix D:  CUWL Subgroup Survey Analysis

Appendix E:  CUWL Subgroup Survey Questions

Appendix F:  Response from Collection Development Committee

Appendix G:  Response from Library Automation Managers

Appendix H:  Response from UWS Archives Council

 

 


Appendix A

Charge to Committee

August 15, 2005


To:  Working Group on CUWL Subgroups
Bob Rose (Chair), Director, UW-Eau Claire
Valerie Malzacher, Director, UW-River Falls
Jana Reeg-Steidinger, Reference, UW-Stout
Mary Rieder, Director, UW Colleges Library Support Services
Paul Moriarty, Senior Library Consultant, OLIT

From:   Patrick Wilkinson, 2005/2006, Chair, Council of UW Libraries (CUWL; Director, UW-Oshkosh, Polk Library)

RE:       Working Group on CUWL Subgroups

Largely because of recent technology, shared systems, and the “one system, one library” concept, UW System library staffs have expressed an increased need for being more connected with each other.  Several standing committees already address this need for those working in archives, automation, collection development, and reference.  However, requests for other subgroups have been made this past year, such as subgroups for distance education librarians and access service librarians. While CUWL members recognize the value of networking and communication, there is also a concern about supporting additional subgroups at the UW System level and the campus levels because of costs and staff time.

As discussed at the May CUWL meeting and the June CUWL Executive Committee meeting, this Working Group is charged with reviewing CUWL subgroups and examining the needs for subgroups.  The Working Group will develop recommendations and guidelines for the establishment and structure of subgroups.  

Among the aspects this group is charged to consider in making recommendations are:

  • Networking:  who needs to network and how is this best accomplished by the various subgroups
  • Communication:  1)  how do the subgroups communicate with each other, with CUWL, and with OLIT  staff  ;  2)  how do CUWL and OLIT staff communicate
  • Advocacy:  who speaks for the various, detailed needs of each functional area among the UW System libraries and brings needs to the attention of CUWL when necessary
  • Membership:  who should be represented on each subgroup and what constitutes a viable group
  • Structure:  what form should subgroups take and who is responsible for what
  • Currently non-existent groups:  which groups have no group representation but have a need for representation
  • Issues:  at what point do issues need to be brought to CUWL; what needs to come to CUWL and what decisions can be handled by the subgroup
  • Support: what support will be required at the UW System level and at each campus level; is it reasonable considering workload and recent budget and staff cuts


A preliminary report from the Working Group is requested at the fall CUWL meeting and a final report at the 2006 spring meeting.

Thank you for your willingness to serve on the Working Group.


c:  Lorie Docken, Senior Library Consultant/IT Planning, OLIT
CUWL
CDC
LAMS
RCC
UWSAC



Appendix B

Timeline

August 2005
CUWL charges Working Group on CUWL Subgroups to review CUWL subgroups, examine the need for subgroups, and to develop recommendations and guidelines for the establishment and structure of subgroups.  

Fall 2005
Working Group begins initial deliberations, researches how other system groups similar to CUWL are organized, and considers options for a potential subgroup restructuring.

December 2005
Working Group surveys all librarians from the UW libraries and support staff members responsible for major functional areas regarding the effectiveness of CUWL subgroups.

January 30, 2006
Working Group discusses a potential large-scale restructuring with CUWL.  CUWL members expressed an openness to considering a new structure for the way in which CUWL operates.

July 17, 2006
Working Group issues Preliminary Report to CUWL and to all CUWL Subgroups, for discussion at the July 25, 2006 CUWL meeting. 

September 15, 2006
Due date for submission of subgroup feedback.  The Collection Development Committee, the Library Automation Managers, and the UW System Archives Council submitted formal feedback.

October 6, 2006
Report discussed in depth at CUWL meeting.  CUWL charged the Executive Committee to make additional changes to the report to reflect the discussion, particularly related to existing functional resource groups and how they can continue to play a role in the CUWL subgroup structure.

October 31, 2006
CUWL Executive Committee issues edited report to CUWL.  Input requested by November 14, 2006.

November 2006 – January 2007
Executive Committee considers feedback from CUWL and drafts additional changes to report.  Final report submitted to CUWL for final discussion and vote at January 24, 2007 CUWL meeting.



Appendix C

Existing CUWL Subgroups as of August, 2005 (When Working Group Was Appointed)

Collection Development Committee
Collection Management Task Force
Diversity Task Force (work now concluded)
Library Automation Managers
Reference Coordinators Committee
Resource Sharing Committee
Strategic Directions Committee
UW Digital Collection Advisory Committee
UW Digital Repository Advisory Committee
UW System Archives Council
UW System SFX/MetaLib Implementation Task Force
Working Group on CUWL Subgroups

Task Forces Subsequent to August, 2005

Book Procurement Working Group
CUWL Task Force to Gather UB Policies
Learn@UW Library Integration Committee

 


Appendix D

CUWL Subgroup Survey Analysis

Demographics

The response rate to the survey was extremely uneven, with staff at the Colleges somewhat more likely to respond than either of the other groups.  Campus participation was rather uneven in responding to the survey.  There were responses from all the comprehensives.  One doctoral institution had minimal participation, with only two responses received from that location.  Responses were received from library staff at all 13 Colleges.  There was a disparity between the numbers of respondents indicating they worked at a college and the IP addresses from which the responses originated.  Library staff members from a number of IP-identified comprehensives indicated they worked at a UW College. One can only speculate as to the reason for this misidentification.

Over 50% of the respondents had 16 or more years of experience in libraries, a fact not surprising given the graying of the profession.  Perhaps more surprising was the number of respondents with 1-5 years of experience and 6-10 years experience  – a total of 32%.  Intuitively, that percentage seems disproportionately high in terms of the total numbers of prospective respondents.  If it is indeed high, it may indicate a higher level of interest among those groups in the topic than among staff with more years of experience.

It is particularly disappointing that the response rate was so low within the doctoral institutions.  Relying on an indirect mode of communication through the CUWL listserv may have been, in retrospect, a mistake in hoping to ensure a higher rate of participation.

Respondents’ Job Responsibilities

It is clear that wearing many job hats is the norm for librarians in the UW system.  Respondents could select as many as needed of the job work areas listed – and they did.  The total percentage of responses was nearly 318%.  It is likely that the multiple responses for some categories – such as Access Services, which totaled 25% - were particularly influenced by smaller-staffed libraries, particularly in the Colleges.  The single largest response category, as expected, was Reference.  One can only surmise that some categories drew a higher level of response from libraries across the system – such as Distance Learning when 11 respondents listed that category – because of a particular interest among those group members in having a greater voice.

CUWL Subgroups

Nearly a third of the respondents indicated they were members of a CUWL subgroup, which seems unusually high and an indicator that an even higher percentage of respondents from the comprehensive and doctoral universities were members, since a comparatively small number of Colleges librarians (6) are so involved.   The single largest group of CUWL subgroup respondents was represented by CDC members.  Fourteen CDC members responded which represents a quite high percentage of that group.  The next largest groups of respondents were from the LAMS, UWSAC and the Reference Coordinators, with respectively 9, 7, and 6 respondents.  The only groups where more than 50% of the members responded were the CDC and LAMS.  A number of groups had only one or two members respond.

CUWL Representation

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents felt their area(s) of specialization was or were well-represented to CUWL.  There were only 3 work groups of which nearly a third or more of their members felt better representation was needed:  Interlibrary Loan at 33%, Government Documents at 44%, and Distance Learning at 90%.   The highest number of respondents was from the Instruction category, with 11 of the total respondents to this question, or 20%, indicating they needed better representation to CUWL.  By far, the group that feels the greatest need for CUWL representation is library staff who work with distant learners.

Seventeen respondents felt there should be a formal subgroup formed to represent their interests as they felt other means to achieve better representation would not be satisfactory.  All 17 are willing to serve on such a subgroup.   However, there was no distinct pattern among the 17 responses with several seeking better representation for universal borrowing, for instruction, for access services (one of which specifically mentioned UB), and even fewer for the arts, government documents, special libraries, electronic resource management, and distance learning.  One respondent did not address the question.

Communication

The vast majority of respondents indicated that if they had a concern that needed to be addressed by CUWL that they would bring it to CUWL’s attention directly via their respective director or College rep or up the “chain of command” at their library to the director.  A fairly small number indicated they would bring it to CUWL’s attention via their subgroup.  A few responded simply saying through their subgroup but the LAMS, UWSAC, CDC, and Reference Coordinators subgroup were each mentioned at least once.  One person indicated he or she would bring it to Lorie or Paul’s attention.

Although this question was couched specifically in terms of the method by which groups could bring issues of concern to CUWL, a number of respondents took advantage of the opportunity to highlight what they saw as such issues or general problems, including the following responses:

I like the ONE library concept being forwarded by CUWL.  BUT let’s make a reality, lets share DATABASES and ONE ejournal collection.  Having each campus buy their own ejournals and databases is CONFUSING when serving the Ask-A-Librarian patrons, doing ILL or directing Distance Education folks.  Lets BE one library!!!  This is the ONE issue that CUWL really needs to direct.

Higher education is in such a continual state of turbulence that planning never seems to keep up.  We must involve more stake holders at all levels in this process.  Too many decisions are being made at higher levels without commentary from the front lines (especially related to the main issues impacting libraries today).

DISTANCE EDUCATION!!!!!!!! It is getting out of control and SERVICE is not standard.  We greatly need a single location to direct our distance education students. Frequently professors come from Madison and assume that the other campus’ enjoy the resources of Madison.  This is not true and our students are not being served.  I suggest that CUWL establish one campus (Madison) as serving all students with full access to all databases and materials.

ALL electronic databases should be available to all UW institutions.   There needs to be ONE UW electronic library for ALL distance education students; with ONE ILL service. There needs to be ONE UW electronic journal database.

There needs to be an authoritative voice regarding Universal Borrowing policies and procedures.  Not all issues are detailed in CUWL’s resource sharing guidelines.  Campuses do not always compromise on settings, or internal procedures which causes problems for the other campuses.  If a task force was formed, I believe it would help by identifying what needs to be done to accommodate all campuses.

A majority (60%) of the respondents who belong to a CUWL subgroup think that communication between their group and CUWL and between their group and other subgroups has been adequate.   A number of respondents made comments for improving communication.  The most common suggestion revolved around making the CUWL website more effective as a communication device.   Paraphrased suggestions or comments follow:

The chair makes a difference in the quality of communication
A general email list would be helpful
Communication among education librarians
Using the CUWL webpage more effectively and integrating meetings with other organizations such as WAAL and WLA.
Reports from subgroups should be more content oriented and less information oriented
Send CUWL representative to subgroup meetings (e.g., UWSAC)
Yearly retreat where all subgroups gather together to meet individually and report out to other subgroups
Improve the CUWL website
Clarify subgroup charges to eliminate potential overlap that causes confusion.  Make sure most current minutes are posted on CUWL website.
Email news and use the CUWL website to communicate CUWL initiatives and to provide an anonymous form for suggestions and concerns
Streamline communication processes

The most popular alternative means of communication, aside from face to face meetings, is clearly telephone conference calls (72%), with listservs following close behind at 61%.  WISLINE/Web conferencing also drew significant support with 50%.  The next most popular suggestion was videoconferencing at 29% with webcasting, instant messaging, and video streaming far behind.

Suggestions or comments included: the need to have at least some face-to-face meetings; that teleconferences can be difficult; connecting meetings to WLA or WAAL is desirable; and posting group minutes to the CUWL website or using that website to communicate more effectively – or by “creating a D2L board that works!”

Conclusion

The information gathered from the survey was useful to the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups but it certainly did not provide any definitive sense of direction.  Certain patterns  emerged from the respondents’ comments and suggestions, including the fact that communication may be a somewhat larger challenge than initially thought.  While 60% said communication was adequate, a full 40% said it was not.  In retrospect, it probably would have been better to either structure some of the questions differently or to add a few.  Possibly the most problematic area of the survey lies in the fact that so many people do so many different things within their libraries.  It was difficult – if not impossible - in most cases to determine whether certain responses were coming from those whose primary responsibility related to that functional area or if that area was tangential to their primary line of work.  In terms of any restructuring to meet changing needs of CUWL and its subgroups for more than the immediate future, it may be somewhat useful to do more sophisticated cross-tabulation based on years of experience.  However, a preliminary analysis of differences in responses to the types of preferred communication question does not reveal significant differences among the groups.  Had time permitted, we would have done more cross tabulations to see if significant differences appeared based on years of experience or type of position. Despite some problems, the survey overall proved to be a worthwhile exercise.



Appendix E

CUWL Subgroup Survey Questions

1. Where in the library do you work?  Select all that apply.

____Access Services (Circulation, Reserves)
____Acquisitions
____Archives and Special Collections
____Cataloging
____Collection Development
____Distance learning
____Government Documents
____Instruction
____Interlibrary loan
____Library Administration
____Library Automation/Systems
____Reference
____Serials
____Technical Services
____Web/Electronic Services
____Other (please specify)

2. Are you currently a member of a CUWL standing committee or task force?

____ Y
____ N

3. If yes, of which sub-groups are you a member?  Select all that apply.

____Collection Development Officers
____Collection Management Task Force
____Library Automation Managers
____Reference Coordinators Committee
____Resource Sharing Committee
____Strategic Directions Committee
____UW Digital Collection Advisory Committee
____UW Digital Repository Advisory Committee
____UW System Archives Council
____UW System SFX/MetaLib Implementation Advisory Committee
____Working Group on Subgroups

4. Do you believe that the needs of your area(s) of specialization in the library are well-represented by the existing CUWL subgroups? 
____ Y
____ N
If you answered yes, please proceed to question number 9.

5. If no, which area(s) of specialization need better representation to CUWL?  Select all that apply.

____ Access Services (Circulation, Reserves)
____Acquisitions
____Archives and Special Collections
____Cataloging
____Collection Development
____Distance learning
____Government Documents
____Instruction
____Interlibrary loan
____Library Administration
____Library Automation/Systems
____Reference
____Serials
____Technical Services
____Web/Electronic Services
____Other (please specify)

6. If no to question 4, do you feel better representation can only be achieved by formation of a formal subgroup or are there other means by which this could be accomplished?

____Yes, there should be a formal subgroup formed
Please specify for which group _______________________________ 
____No, other means can be used to achieve better representation

7. If you answered yes to 6, please indicate what you see as the purpose of that newly formed subgroup and what specific actions it might take.

8. If you answered number 7, would you be willing to serve on such a subgroup if it was formed?

____Y
____N

9. If you had a concern that you thought needed to be addressed by CUWL, how would you bring it to the attention of that group?

10. If you currently belong to a CUWL subgroup, do you feel that communication between your group and CUWL and between your group and other subgroups, has been adequate?

____Y
____N

11. If not, how would you suggest improving communication?  Please specify if you are referring to communication between your subgroup and CUWL or between particular subgroups.

12. Given the recent tight budgets in the UW system which have lead to frequent travel restrictions, what alternative methods of meeting or communicating do you feel are the most effective?

____Listservs
____Teleconferences
____Videoconferences
____WISLINE/Web conferencing
____ Video streaming
____ Webcasting
____ Instant messaging
____ Other (Please specify)______________________________________


 


Appendix F

Response from CDC

As Chair of the Collection Development Committee (CDC), I am writing to respond for the committee to the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups Preliminary Report recommendations.

The CDC is a well established committee begun in 1991 with guidelines that it follows to make recommendations to CUWL to manage the Electronic Collection of the UWS Libraries and to work on other cooperative collection endeavors that promote the goal of “One system, one library.” 

The committee brings together the many voices that communicate the varying campus user needs and concerns, shares high levels of expertise and experience in collection development, has an equal voice in decision-making in selection, and ultimately works for the good of the system in a very efficient manner.

The impetus of the July 25, 2006 report was a “perceived need for UWS staffs to be more connected to one another.” To address this, the goal was to increase communication and cooperation, decrease costs for ineffective groups and reduce OLIT oversight.  Bob Rose cited these concerns at the August 22 CDC meeting as well as the need for system focus versus a campus focus in a group and a structure for committees that had less of a top-down driven focus.  While these concerns may apply to many committees, they are not applicable to the CDC.  The committee has a long established record of following established guidelines, meeting its goals and deadlines and regularly reporting to CUWL on its activities as well as its concerns.  It addresses the needs of multiple constituencies by bringing information from the campus reference staffs into its decisions via its CDC representatives, setting up state-wide trials and occasional group meetings with reference coordinators.  It has a clear record of posted minutes that are now on the CUWL website, in addition to the sharing of information with all directors and reference staffs.  Most importantly, the committee has evolved to think holistically of the state collection.  While each representative does bring an individual campus perspective, the greater goal of the effectiveness of the shared collection and its benefits to all campuses has overcome the individual boundaries, resulting in a very efficient and cooperative partnership.

One concern mentioned is the use of OLIT staff time.  The CDC does receive assistance from OLIT for the collection of data, the set-up of trials, and information on the status of the budget.  To offset some of this workload, members of the CDC have indicated that this could be done by committee members.

The proposed restructuring of the committees has been designed to improve the communication among underrepresented groups.  However, the committee has neglected to truly review the ramifications of this restructuring on well functioning committees such as the CDC.  Nor has the committee truly considered what the CDC does. The management of the electronic collection is not a project but an ongoing year-round entity that is dynamic and requires ongoing monitoring by, and input by many.  I must also point out that the collection is not just funded by system money and thus, should have the continuous input of all campuses.  In the future, this campus investment will only become larger as campus contributions increase to offset inflation or fund new endeavors. .  The decisions for the electronic collection cannot be made by a representative few, most of whom will not even be representatives of the collection development area.  Collection development discussions are often complicated and benefit from face to face discussion and meetings often include demonstrations from vendors.  If the new structure is implemented the CDC will still need to function in some capacity to manage the electronic collection effectively and share information on the many topics and projects related to it and collection development.  These experiences can in some cases be replaced by phone conferences but not by listservs as the primary means of communication.  Collection development issues are often quite complicated and discussions on listservs would be inefficient..

In the proposed structure, collection development is combined with resource sharing. Resource sharing as an element of database and licensing are relevant concerns in development of the electronic collection.  However, it would be far more efficient to incorporate these concerns into resource selection than to dismantle a well-established and efficiently functioning committee that requires a high level if expertise to make decisions. Although the minutes of the CDC have long been available on the CUWL website, CDC information could also readily be communicated to related group listservs meeting the need for improved communication quite effectively.

This is a critical time for collection development in the UW System.  We are at a point when cooperation among the campus collection development librarians is crucial as we work on the finer points of implementing the cooperative collection development of books as well as continuing to build the electronic collection in an ever-changing marketplace and attain the goal of “one system, one library.”   It will be unfortunate if this structure is implemented for the sake of implementing a consistent structure for all committees that overlooks function and effectiveness of very efficient and effective ones in their current state.  It will also be an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars that have been invested to build the committees to what they are today.

 


Appendix G

September 8th, 2006

As current chair of the UW System LAMs group, I’m writing on behalf of my fellow members in response to the preliminary report on CUWL subgroups.  The LAMs, as a group, have strong reservations as to the efficacy of this new structure:

  • All LAMs contribute to automation and technology discussions.  Since each site is unique, we therefore have unique ways of using shared systems.  Automation managers share their different strengths and expertise, creating innovative solutions to our collective problems. 
  • Serving on one of these committees as a LAMs/technical representative would be a daunting task given the complexity of the systems and the great variability among campus implementations.
  • A discussion happening on the individual list—merely funneled through this higher committee—would significantly slow down decisions for no real purpose.  This seems to add to the administrative burden for OLIT, not lessen it.
  • LAMs are a working group, not a policy making group, and are functioning well, as such.
  • Face-to-face meetings and a separate mailing list for the LAMs will still be critical in order to share information, work through problems, view demos, etc.  One or two days of face-to-face meetings once or twice a year are more efficient for working through problems than any other method of communication.
  • Some groups may be able to take on some of the system-wide administrative duties that Lorie and Paul currently handle.  However, the LAMs strongly feel that having a consistent contact person with our vendors is important when negotiating costs, scheduling upgrades and especially exerting influence to correct problems with vendor software.

Moreover, our preliminary reading of the document raises some questions:

  • According to the document, “The committee will develop policies and procedures related to … hardware hosting and maintenance …Does this mean that the hub group will be eliminated?  Will they be a subcommittee?
  • Given that technical issues need to be discussed at the LAMs level anyway, how would the Technology Initiatives committee add value?
  • Will this new committee be able to do any more than rubber stamp the decision from the individual list?
  • What is to be gained by positioning the System-Wide Library Technology Initiatives Coordinating Committee between the LAMS and CUWL? 

While we strive for consistent implementation of shared systems, the reality is that each site is unique.  Decisions related to systems such as Voyager, SFX, and MetaLib affect different campuses in different ways, requiring input from all sites.  Furthermore, the complexity of these systems does not lend itself to a rotating committee membership. 

Based on this, the LAMS group would need to continue—in some form—to address operational issues, if nothing else.  In so doing, we're best positioned to address system coordination, procedural and consistency issues as well.  It's unclear what is to be gained by positioning the System-Wide Library Technology Initiatives Coordinating Committee between the LAMS and CUWL.  Overall, the proposed structure seems conducive to the generation of policy, but seems to underestimate the value of input and knowledge sharing among those most closely involved in the major systems.

Jon Mark Bolthouse, UW-Colleges

On behalf of the LAMs subgroup

Sylvia Beardsley, UW-Parkside
Marlys Brunsting, UW-Green Bay
Luellen Breed, UW-Parkside
Alan Davis, UW-Whitewater
William Doering, UW-La Crosse
Steve Elfstrand, UW-Eau Claire
Barbara Fahey, UW-Oshkosh
Carol Hagness, UW-Stout
Mitch Lundquist, UW-Madison
Jon Musselman, UW-Platteville
Debra Nordgren, UW-Superior
Maureen Olle-LaJoie, UW-River Falls
Andy Ritter, UW-Milwaukee
Carole Van Horn, UW-Stevens Point

 


Appendix H

Response from UW System Archives Council

August 24, 2006

To:  Valerie Malzacher, UW-River Falls
Paul Moriarty, UWSA-OLIT
Mary Rieder, UW-Colleges
Bob Rose (Chair), UW-Eau Claire

From:   Michael Doylen, UWSAC (Chair)

Re:       Response to Working Group on CUWL Subgroups Preliminary Report

Members of UWSAC read with interest the preliminary report of the working group. We welcome the recommendation that archivists participate on two of the four proposed coordinating committees, the “System-Wide Archives and Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee” and the “System-Wide User Services Initiatives Coordinating Committee.”  However, we ask that the Working Group delete the word “Archives” from the name of the former group. From the description of this proposed group, the emphasis is clearly on digital initiatives, not archives and records management.

Based on correspondence with Bob Rose, I understand that the Working Group will recommend that UWSAC remain as a group, but that it become more closely affiliated with the Wisconsin Historical Society than CUWL. Several members of UWSAC, including myself, have concerns regarding such a recommendation. The concerns deal with lines of reporting, and recognition by CUWL directors of the importance of the archives and records management programs administered by the Archives/Special Collections Departments within their libraries.

UWSAC is primarily composed of UW archivists who meet twice yearly to discuss UW business pertaining to archives and records management. We routinely spend time discussing the Area Research Center Network, as 11 of the 13 campuses represented on UWSAC administer this program through their Archives or Special Collections Department. However, UWSAC has business beyond the ARC Network. For instance, we are currently working with Laura Dunek, Regent Records Policy Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, on the development of a UW System Records and Information Management Policy. UWSAC is also coordinating the development of system-wide general retention schedules for common record series. Finally, UWSAC is working on digitizing published histories of the individual campuses. These projects demonstrate the importance of archives and records management to the UW System, and the vital role played by UWSAC in ensuring that the success and growth of those programs.

As employees of the UW System, and as representatives of archives within the UW System, it is more logical that UWSAC maintains close affiliation with a body located within the UW System rather than one that is not. Such administrative ties encourage accountability. Especially at a time when the UW System is coming under closer scrutiny for its records-keeping practices, and when issues relating to electronic records management are increasingly coming to the fore, CUWL directors should consider the importance of an infrastructure that encourages strong archives and records management programs.

We believe that the interests of the UW System are best served by keeping UWSAC intact and maintaining its close reporting ties to CUWL. If the Working Group wishes to investigate other possibilities for UWSAC, we would be pleased to work with them towards developing some other recommendation.