SCLS Administrative Council
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wintergreen Resort, WI Dells
Present: J. Berg (14), P. Bosben (11), J. Chase (6-7), T. Herold (5), M. Friesen (3), C. Froistad, S. Lee, (8-10), A. Barnett (1), B. Miller (4), D. McCabe (2)
(The number following each individual indicates the cluster
Also Present: H. Moe, M. Van Pelt, L. Page , SCLS Directors
Excused: J. Christensen (12); S. Schultz (13)
CALL TO ORDER: M. Friesen called the meeting to order at 12:58 p.m.
a. Introduction of guests/visitors: None
b. Changes/additions to the agenda: None
c. Requests to address the Council: None
Approval of previous meeting minutes: J. Berg moved approval of the October 18, 2012 minutes. B. Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Discussion- Recommendation to the SCLS Board of Trustees
regarding the Governance Structure:
Laura Page facilitated the discussion and addressed the note cards that contained questions and topics created by the directors during the morning session of the All-Directors meeting.
The first topic of discussion was how the non-LINKCat libraries’ voices are to be heard. Input included the following:
Non-LINKCat members are not as
represented as LINKCat members.
Why should non-LINKCat members have a voice in LINKCat decisions?
Non-LINKCat members don’t feel that they are getting full SCLS representation.
How do non-LINKCat members receive communication from the ILS committee? Through clusters? Non-LINKCat ILS representatives? Non-voting member on AC and ILS? Who to contact with questions?
Non-LINKCat directors are urged to pay attention to agenda and minutes from the SCLS committees.
Non-LINKCat members may not realize all of the services that SCLS offers?
Should the non-LINKCat members form a committee?
It was suggested that Mark Ibach and/or
Denise Anton Wright provide a link on the AC agenda to provide any new items
that may be happening in the system.
It was also suggested that a SCLS staff member attend a non-LINKCat meeting.
J. Berg moved approval to form a non-LINKCat
committee facilitated by SCLS staff. P.
D. McCabe moved to table the motion. A. Barnett seconded. Motion carried.
The Governance Structure Work Group will put this topic on their next agenda to discuss further.
The second topic discussed was the proposed county based cluster model. The proposed cluster revision is based on counties and would change from 15 to 13 clusters and the “at-large” positions would be eliminated. Each county would receive one seat with the exception of DCLS (2), DC Suburban (2) and MPL (3). Another change includes cluster representatives presenting all viewpoints of their cluster (majority and minority) with the intent to facilitate dialogue and discussion with consensus as the end result.
With regard to the roles of the committees (AC, Technology, Delivery), they are recognized as advisory – no voting will take place and consensus will be the goal. Any appeals from AC or ILS will go directly to the SCLS Board.
A. Barnett moved approval of the proposed county based cluster model recommendation to the SCLS Board as presented by the Governance Structure Work Group. S. Lee seconded. Motion carried. 6 yes, 2 no.
The two members of the AC who voted against the motion noted their reasoning was:
1. Not being clear on how the consensus will work with voting and polling.
2. A suggestion that there needs to be a commitment to training for directors regarding consensus building and meeting facilitation, etc.
M. Van Pelt pointed out the problem with the vote passing still left “winners” and “losers” and that the goal of the new governance structure was to create better problem solving through consensus. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding voting versus seats and the role of the AC as an advisory committee. J. Berg suggested the group try working on the recommendation through consensus.
J. Chase moved to reconsider the vote for the proposed county based cluster model. B. Miller seconded. Motion carried. The AC voted against approval of the proposal county based cluster model to the SCLS Board. It was decided that the note cards that contained questions created from the directors during the All-Directors meeting will be summarized and emailed to all the member directors to review and discuss at their cluster meetings. The cluster representatives will then present the views of their clusters regarding the governance structure recommendations at the AC meeting in December.
Because of time, all other topics were tabled.
Reports of action of committees/workgroups: All tabled until December meeting
a. Delivery Committee:
b. ILS Committee:
c. Technology Committee:
d. E-commerce Work Group:
Governance Structure Work Group:
Items from clusters for initial discussion: None.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Next meeting: December 20, 2012
Heidi Moe, Recorder