SECT Minutes, February 14, 2006

Present: Joyce Chestnut, Sue Baughman, Sue Koutsky, Johnnie Love, Maggie Saponaro,and Jennifer Hatleberg

Facilitator: Johnnie Love

Notetaker: Maggie Saponaro (for Rough/SCOTT representative)

Timekeeper: Sue Baughman (for Saponaro)

Agenda Review (Love)

Outcome: No changes to agenda. It was noted Jane Williams has taken a leave of absence from the group for the time being, and that Jenny Kinniff will not be attending SECT meetings this spring as they fall at the same time as a course she is taking. Bob Kackley had previously indicated he would not be able to attend today’s meeting due to a teaching commitment. Allan Rough, representative from SCOTT, was unable to attend. The role rotations were adjusted accordingly.

Approve minutes from January 10, 2006

Outcome: Minutes approved. Maggie will ask Jenny Kinniff to post on the SECT website.

Marketing Learning Curriculum Activities (Koutsky)

Outcome: Sue K. led this discussion designed as a follow-up to work initiated at the January meeting regarding marketing Learning Curriculum programs. After reviewing the flipchart notes from the January meeting, Sue K. led a brainstorming session to answer the question “Who do we want to market Learning Curriculum programs to?” (what segments to target). The list generated included:

• Supervisors
• Non-Exempt staff (those who can have overtime, e.g. Library Technicians I-III)
• Faculty
• Graduate Assistants and student workers
• Technical skill-specific users (Cuts across all groups – those that need a specific skill to do their job – e.g. Mac users, Excel users, those with budgeting/purchasing responsibilities)
• Division directors
• Divisions
• Front-line personnel
• Non-users of the Learning Curriculum
• Teams
• Administrative assistants
• Library Administrative Group
• CLIS Students and faculty

It was noted some of these groups may intersect (e.g. – a team may include faculty, staff and GAs).

The next step was to target specific groups from the list for further discussion (who they are, what prevents them from attending programs, who is resistant to attending programs). Although all groups will be examined at some point, the four groups chosen for initial discussion were:

• Supervisors
• Faculty
• Division Directors
• Non-users of the Learning Curriculum

New Student Assistant Orientation

Johnnie Love gave an overview on the plan for providing new student assistant orientation. Dates scheduled for orientation are: February 7, 9 and 10. We will be using the same format as in the fall. The challenge has been to find a time that is compatible and appropriate for student work schedules.

SECT members present were divided into three groups – each discussing one of three targeted audience sectors above (Supervisors, Faculty, Division Directors). The “Non-Users” category was set aside temporarily to be discussed at a future meeting. SECT members brainstormed attributes associated with members of the specific group they were assigned, including those that may influence why they would/would not attend programming. Each group reported out. (Group reports attached at end of the Minutes.) These attributes can be reviewed and taken into consideration as a marketing plan is later developed. This topic will be revisited at the March meeting.

Update on New Student Assistant Orientation (Love)

Outcome: Johnnie shared information about the spring orientation session held on February 9th, and noted an additional session is scheduled for February 20th. She is considering scheduling an orientation session one day per month, and will work out the calendar with program presenters. She noted it may be necessary to find a “backup” or alternate for program presenters. She plans to start with this schedule in March.

Six-month Survey Progress (Saponaro)

Outcome: Maggie distributed 6-month survey summaries for the ARL Professional Writing, Advanced Word, and Library Web Templates sessions offered in July, and noted that all programs since July 1st are on a schedule for 6-month evaluations. Staff Learning will create a grid to track the responses to two questions in particular: “Are there other skills you wished had been taught at this workshop?” and “What other topics would you like to see Staff Learning and Development offer?” It is hoped doing so will be useful in revising existing workshops and identifying future programming. Maggie asked the group to review the survey results and report back at the next meeting if they saw anything to comment upon.

Round Robin

• Maggie – Noted that Staff Learning is working on the spring calendar of activities, but that one program (“Gathering, Displaying and Understanding Data”) scheduled for May 18th (10:00-12:00) and May 24th (1:00-3:00) is already open for registration. Maggie also noted that an article will be submitted for Library Matters on the six-month survey program underway for Learning Curriculum programs.
• Joyce – Noted that the Administrative Assistants are in the process of formalizing into a cohesive group. A number of new Administrative Assistants have joined the Libraries, along with three AAs already on staff. This group is working towards learning from each other, and has a number of topics they hold in common (personnel issues, budgeting, dealing with staff, etc.). They will have a discussion on “dealing with difficult people” at their next gathering. Johnnie has asked to be on the agenda for one of their future meetings.

March Meeting Agenda (Love/Saponaro)

Outcome: Initial topics for the March meeting include:

• Continuation of marketing discussion (Koutsky - topic leader)
• Update on six-month survey progress (Saponaro - topic leader)
• Round Robin (all)

Next meeting: March 14, 1:00 - 2:00, MCK 7121

Facilitator: Saponaro; Notetaker: Baughman; Timekeeper: Chestnut

Characteristics/Attributes of Groups
Small Group Discussion Results (Agenda item 3: Marketing LC Activities)

Division Directors

• Full Schedules
• Responsibilities outside of libraries
• Potential to reach a lot of people - their presence could be an influence
• Less approachable
• Not all programs are relevant to what they do - should they be going?
• Want to promote good image of the Library
• Want to be in line with peer institutions

Supervisors

• Attending a lot of meetings; already away from their desks a lot
• Down a staff person
• Don't feel workshops are targeted to their needs
• Timing of programs
• See [attending workshops] as a low priority versus helping staff get job done
• Expect to learn from someone else who already attended the program
• Someone attended the program and didn't have a good experience
• They feel they already know the information

Faculty

• Say they are too busy/don't have time
• Would attendance really enhance my promotion/subject expertise?
• Quality of instruction - in some cases may want an academic [teaching program]
• Faculty who don't want to interact with the public and/or other staff
• Conscientious about their subject and teaching it
• This is a repeat - I've done this before

return to top