ACRL-Oregon Board Meeting
May 7, 2004
Portland State  University

The following minutes of the ACRL-Oregon Board Meeting are provided for informational purposes only. This is not intended to be a formal report.

Attending: Julia Longbrake, Sarah Beasley, Ruth Vondracek, Joni Roberts, Carol McCulley, Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon, Pam Horan, Susan Hinken

Sarah called the meeting to order and shared the news that Elaine Gass-Hirsch had her baby girl.

Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the last meeting. The proxy issue for the OLA board was clarified. Sarah explained that proxies were allowed in the ACRL bylaws but not by the OLA until recently. The use of proxies will allow OLA to keep a quorum at meetings. The same proxy will serve throughout the year. The Board discussed our potential involvement in the Oregon Academy of Sciences to clarify that portion of the minutes. The OAS meets in winter and it has been suggested that librarians make presentations at the Academy’s meetings. There are especially good opportunities for science librarians. Jeananne said she would link their website to ours and Carol said she would think about a program for OAS. With these clarifications the minutes were approved on voice vote.

Career Fair: Julia reported on the Career Fair held recently at the University of Portland. She felt we had a good location and with the assistance of a student from Emporia, it went well. The display Board was a good draw. She and Pam will do a write up to guide planning for next year.

OLA wrap up: Sarah and others heard raves about Dr. Bennett’s presentation. Dr. Bennett was very generous and adjusted her fee. Sarah sent thank yous on ACRL stationary. Could we have done more to get the word out about the pre-conference? The old print registration packets were a good place to push a program. Perhaps we could make more use of email/lists in the future.
We sponsored a good mix of programs but scheduling was an issue. Our programs competed with one another. Also many attendees leave before the last program on Friday. It might benefit the conference to change the Friday schedule, shortening breaks and adjourning the conference earlier. Another issue was the cost of equipment. We need to be mindful of these issues for next year and work with academic librarians on the program committee to help address them. Sarah will follow up with Cindy to get evaluation data.
About 25 people attended the reception. Should we return to a breakfast? The breakfast could draw more people. Successful breakfast programs in the past have focused on travel or work abroad opportunities for librarians. It was thought that having a membership meeting was a good idea in Menucha years to develop interest.
Ideas for next year:
• Have Board attend as many programs as possible.
• Breakfast
• Work with local arrangements/program about facilities and scheduling issues
• Advocate for our programs using lists and email
• Encourage academic librarians to present at OLA programs that they have given elsewhere

ALA Legislative Day: Sarah reported on her recent trip to Washington DC. She felt it was a valuable experience and, after seeing the ALA DC office staff in action, she knew her ALA dues were well spent. The Oregon delegation visited primarily with aides but was able to advocate for a number of library issues including the storage center. Sarah feels we should continue to fund this activity.

OLA Legislative report: Heather sent a written report. It is useful to have an academic librarian on this committee. OLA Legislative Day is January 27, 2005 (mark your calendars). We need to encourage people to attend:
• Make this an agenda item for membership meeting at Menucha
• Use the ACRL NW list serve to encourage attendance
• Send out a save the date announcement in fall, with other encouraging emails to follow

Board elections: Carol reported on the elections. The services of were confusing and we will be billed for $95.00 for setting up our ballot although Bonnie tried to avoid charges by using three separate directories. The Board approved the expenditure. Because the ballot came from CampusVote, some members could have been confused and deleted our ballot instead of voting. Carol and Bonnie will follow up with contacting the membership about voting and Sarah will follow up about getting the election results if our payment takes time to move through the OLA process.
Having access to an electronic survey tool could solve this problem. This needs to be an OLA solution.

Menucha: Carol suggested that Peter Suber would be a good keynote speaker. He’s written on the state of scholarly communication (i.e. his SPARC open access newsletter). Susan Barnes-Whyte knows him and could make the initial contact. Carol will follow up on his suitability as a speaker and then work with Susan if we want to invite him. We should look at his online newsletter (Carol will send the URL) to come up with ideas on how we want him to frame the keynote speech.
The program format was discussed and it was felt that a focused program on scholarly communication could draw the most participants. The format was framed:
• Keynote—Thursday afternoon
• Responder panel—Thursday afternoon
• Membership meetings—Thursday
• Social event—Thursday evening
• Group discussions on the impact of changes in scholarly communication by area of interest: reference, instruction, faculty role, copyright, impact/interest within various disciplines; access and bibliographic control; licensing; archives/institutional repositories—Friday morning
• Reports from group discussions—Friday morning
• Summing up—Friday morning

Sarah suggested that responders could include Deb Carver from UO and UW’s scholarly communication librarian. We might be able to draw on work being done in the region. Camila Gabaldon at Western Oregon is working on a DSpace type repository and OSU is beginning the conversation.
We should decide about Peter Suber by the end of the month.
We hope vendors will be willing to help defray costs although it might be a little late in the season to ask for support. Possible vendors include: Demco, Brodart, Blackwell, Orbis/Cascade, OCLC, Serials Solutions, Gale, Midwest, Newsbank, Wilson, Proquest, III. Susan will ask Diane Sotak about her success in contacting vendors for OLA. Sarah suggested we start thinking soon of how ACRL can make money.
Ruth and Bonnie will handle the scholarship process. Applications will be due on September 15. Jeananne is asked to put a placeholder on the web page for the scholarship application.
Local arrangements: Sarah said she would chair. Caroline will be asked to work on registration.

Calendar: no report

Other business:
Ruth said OSU would like to see other academic libraries participate in L-Net. Perhaps a separate track for academic libraries would encourage more to participate.
GWLA is developing a digital ref chat that will build upon the subject strengths of participants. Ruth reported that she did not know how GWLA is funded.
Faye Chadwell, in her role as OLA president, has asked divisions to pay attention to how SB 12, the change in net lender reimbursement has affected libraries.

The Board had not other business and Chair Sarah Beasley adjourned the meeting.

Reported by Susan Hinken