Attending : Greg Allen, Tatiana Barr (Facilitator), Tim Hartigan, Suzanne Kiker, Linda Silba and Terri Smith

 

We reviewed the Committee’s charge as outlined in the memorandum written by Dot Hope 6/28/2000 and then refreshed our memory of the RS assessment process, the working groups involved, and documents relevant to our charge. We focused on the following papers:

• RS Assessment Working Groups pageon the RS homepage with links to their reports
• 2000/2001 Resource Services Department Strategic Objectives
• Recommended Objective/Group Recommending/Action document compiled by Dot Hope (5/30/1999). See Public Folder under RS Org. Review
• George A. Smathers Libraries 1999/2000 Strategic Objectives

 

The members of the Committee discussed the group’s role to make sure that we all understood the limits of our charge which is to “be advisory in that the plan recommended will be submitted to all RS Staff for discussion” and “will facilitate the discussion among the units and sections in the department.” According to our charge, we will post minutes on the RS page, and the final product will be a web-based document of a workable plan.

 

We made some decisions about how we would do our work in an organized and systematic way, and decided on some basic tenets:

 

1. Use the Recommended Objective/Group Recommending/Action document as the basic document—perhaps extend it to include results on the pattern of the George A. Smathers Libraries 1999/2000 Strategic Objectives, maintained by Martha Hruska

 

2. Evaluate and update document to reflect what has been done in the interim

 

3. To be as objective as possible, we decided to take in order the first, second, etc. recommendation of each of the 11 working groups; if necessary contact the group to see if anything has been accomplished in the meantime; make recommendations based on the group reports; or postpone any action until further information is gathered.

 

4. We will address every point.

 

5. The Committee decided that the process of implementing the RS assessment goals should be ongoing and reasonable. Considering how much work everyone has to do, the recommendations and actions taken should not become burdensome and have a reasonable expectation of succeeding. Actions set will be reevaluated over time. One suggestion was to rotate members to include others who may wish to participate on a yearly or biyearly basis.

 

6. The Committee decided it is extremely important to address and keep before us the perception of problems and difficulties in RSD, which the RS assessment process revealed. It is important, we agreed, to see this implementation process as a way of improving the overall morale of the Resource Services Department.

 

In this initial meeting, the first examination of the first recommendations by the groups led to the following recommendations and actions by the Committee (taken from compiled objectives):

 

Accountability. Set RS objectives as a group. Clarify specific group process recommended goals/objectives of depts. Feed into Libraries G & O.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Reexamine George A. Smathers Libraries 1999/2000 (or more recent) Strategic Objectives

 

Communications. Create RSD newsletter. A volunteer is available so this could be implemented relatively quickly

 

RECOMMENDATION: Linda Silba volunteered to contact Becky Nero-Wall who volunteered to work on such a newsletter. The recommendation was to look at the economics of it and it’s format.

 

Electronic Formats. Link Monitoring and Maintenance Committee's (LMMC) function as clearinghouse for questions related to remote electronic resources; maintain list of branch liaisons to facilitate; consider need to keep consortial groups apprised. No action recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Find out what LMMC’s function is, clarify the goal, and postpone any recommendation by the Committee.

   

Equipment. Identify power users. Adequately equip computer power users. Assign team of RS staff.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Get back to technical liaisons and find out the extent of this goal and clarify its purposes. Many of the Equipment suggestions are being acted upon as a result of the physical reorganization. Need to review and update status of these goals

 

Hiring. RS advertise by email a job vacancy to RS staff at the formation of search committees. Library Personnel Officer (LPO) will arrange informational sessions for all interested library staff to clarify; RS follows Libraries’ policies and procedures

 

RECOMMENDATION: Monitor and broadcast what sessions LPO is arranging to help inform the staff. It was not clear to many, we thought, that the last workshop on applying for positions at UF was a response to this objective

 

Morale. Include staff achievements in RS news vehicle. No action.

 

RECOMMENDATION: This would be addressed by launching an RSD newsletter

 

Time did not permit us to go on to the remaining working groups and these will be addressed in our next meeting:

Pay/Incentives

Physical Environment

Systems Liaisons

Training

Workflow/Structure

 

General work procedure:

 

We will meet twice a month.

We will summarize our discussion and decisions in the minutes.

We will post the compiled objectives on the Web and update them as progress is made.

We will inform the staff whenever any minutes have been posted

We welcome all comments and suggestions.

 

---

 

Prepared by: Tatiana Barr, September 1, 2000