Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Minutes for Monday, May 6, 2002

2:30-4:10 p.m. Room 222

________________________________________________________________________

Issue 1: Recap of last meeting

Desired outcome: To ensure there are no questions left over from the last meeting

Outcome: Discussed the recent Collection Development Forum. Several concerns were expressed: 1) there was not enough time for discussion at the CD Forum and in order to create a successful strategic plan, faculty and staff need to be involved, 2) the library came into the process rather late and some departments have already submitted draft plans to their deans, 3) if there are differences of opinion within the dept., whom should the librarian interview; 4) is the purpose to get input from the department's for our plan or to provide library input for theirs; and 5) how was the decision made to interview the dept. chairs and write the scripts.

The committee decided to ask the Associate Directors to discuss the scripts with the subject librarians/liaisons at the various division meetings. This would give more time to answer questions and address concerns. If a librarian has recently talked to the dept., he or she may answer the interview questions without conducting another interview. If there are several opinions within a dept., the librarian may want to talk to the two or three subgroups in addition to the dept. chair. The purpose of the scripts is two-fold: to get input from the depts. for the library's plan and to provide library input into theirs. JY will be talking to the deans throughout the summer, but the committee still needs to discuss formal input from the deans. The library would be trying to get a sense of their aspirations and the relationship with what the library is doing. The decision to interview dept. chairs was made by the SPSC. The committee broadly represents the library, and the faculty and staff are being asked to trust their colleagues. Faculty and staff should feel free to talk to any member of the SPSC and to provide input. PL is doing a lot of support work to allow the SPSC to spend time discussing the issues. SPSC members may also feel free to discuss agendas and other support work with PL at any time.

Issue 2: Is the library's mission statement adequate for our purposes? If not, how should it be modified [please note, the SPSC may not be able to modify formally the mission statement, but we can make suggestions to the group that is able to]?

Desired outcome: To have a mission statement that is an accurate reflection of the library's mission and that will be helpful for our work

Outcome: The committee decided that the mission statement is good enough for the SPSC's work, but should be re-written in one of the later phases of strategic planning. The SPSC represents the library well enough to imagine what the re-written mission statement would probably look like. The committee was a little unclear about the distinction between a mission statement and vision statement, but thought that it is too long, does not emphasize the library's educational role, does not take a position that would help assess opportunities, does not incorporate items from the University's mission statement, and emphasizes information and knowledge at the expense of other areas of human endeavor and creativity.

Issue 3: What is the University's thinking about and expectations of the libraries? Is this thinking reflected in the libraries mission statement?

Desired outcome: To have a mission statement that relates well to the University's mission, expectations, etc.

Outcome: When the mission statement was assessed for its relation to the University's mission and expectations, the SPSC decided that more from the University's mission statement should be included when it is re-written. There was some concern that the library's mission statement does not mention the Catholic nature of the University and that it does not express support for broad intellectual pursuits within the departments of excellence. The SPSC still needs to decide how, when, and who should undertake the re-writing of the mission statement.

Issue 4: a. Of the different vision statements, which one is most appropriate for our work? b. Is this one adequate? If not, how should it be modified [please note, the SPSC may not be able to modify formally the vision statement, but we can make suggestions to the group that is able to]?

Desired outcome: a. To select the vision statement that is the best expression of the library's current vision; b. To review that vision statement so it accurately reflects the library's vision and so it will be helpful for our work.

Outcome: The committee decided that there are two vision statements, but that both have a value and should be kept in mind for our work. This statement, too, should be rewritten. "A Great Destination for Learning and Research" is a good catchphrase, but may be passive. There was some concern that we should have a vision statement to help assess strategic issues. The opposing view was that strategic issues help shape the vision statement. The SPSC will work without deciding this issue, but will keep it in mind as strategic issues are discussed.

Issue 5: a. Should the library have a values statement? b. Do we need it for our work?

Desired outcome: a. To decide whether the library should have a values statement; b. If necessary, to determine how one will be created and when we will need it.

Outcome: The committee decided that because the University and the library do not have values statements, one should be written for the library. Even though there are no major problems that would be make a values statement immediately necessary, DAID, for example, has found that having one, even for a dept., is useful. It could be used to embody how employees are treated, and to clarify workplace and service values, among other things.

Issue 6: Next steps

Desired outcome: Review likely agenda for next meeting

Outcome: For the next meeting, the committee decided to review the self-study and to index significant discussions of the library's strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. At the meeting, the committee will use the indexes to begin a discussion about the library's opportunities and threats. The instructions PL wrote were approved, so indexes will be turned in to him electronically by Thursday, May 16. He will compile/combine the results and distribute them prior to the meeting.

The committee will divide into three teams: 1) GD (lead), LF, PL, and SVJ; 2) MS (lead), DG, PL, and CT; and 3) DM (lead), LB, EM, and SS. Each team will index Tabs 5, 6, and 7 respectively. All three teams will index Tabs 3, 8, and 9. Tabs 1, 2, and 4 will not be indexed because they are primarily historical.