dLOC Executive Board: Meeting Agenda and Minutes ( 2 June 2011)
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00093611/00011
 Material Information
Title: dLOC Executive Board: Meeting Agenda and Minutes ( 2 June 2011)
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Digital Library of the Caribbean (dLOC)
Publisher: Digital Library of the Caribbean (dLOC)
Place of Publication: Miami, Florida
Creation Date: June 2, 2011
Genre: serial   ( sobekcm )
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UF00093611:00011


This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )

( DOC )

Full Text


dLOC Executive Board Meeting
Meeting Agenda

University of South Florida 5:00pm, June 2, 2011

1. dLOC Update
a. Newsletter to promote and document dLOC activities
b. Subcommittees
i. Technical Standards and Training
1. Metadata Guide in Process
2. New Online Tools in Final Stage of Development
ii. Teaching and Outreach
1. Conferences
2. K-12 Outreach
iii. Development
1. Haiti Island Luminous Grant for Digital Exhibit
2. Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere Library
Enhancement Grant
3. Florida International University Technology Fee Award
c. New Partner Invitation

2. Funding Structure
a. Membership Levels for Financial Supporters
b. Draft Letter to Libraries

3. Executive Committee
a. Elections
b. Length of Terms
c. Length of Leadership and Succession

4. Bylaws
a. Change of fiscal year
b. Incorporate Changes to Election Procedure

5. 2011/2012 Goals and Plans

6. Any Other Business


dLOC Executive Board Meeting
Meeting Minutes

University of South Florida 5:00pm, June 2, 2011

dLOC Executive Board Meeting
USF, June 2, 2011
5:00 PM

Margo Groenewoud (Vice-chair, Netherlands Antilles Library) and Joy Ysaguirre (Chief
Librarian, Belize National Library Service and Information System) were not in

Executive Board:
Chair: Jean Wilfrid Bertrand, Director, Archives Nationales d'Haiti
Secretary: Dr. Mark Greenberg, Director of Special & Digital Collections, University of
South Florida
Barry Baker, Director of Libraries, University of Central Florida
Astrid Britten, Director, Director, Biblioteca Nacional Aruba
Maureen Newton, Caribbean Community Secretariat
Dulce Maria Nufiez, Director, Biblioteca, Pontificia Universidad Madre y Maestra
Past-Chair (non-voting): Judith Rogers, Manager, Library and Faculty Technology
Services, University of the Virgin Islands (UVI)
Administrative Host Institution:
Laurie Probst, Dean of Libraries, Florida International University (FIU)
Brooke Wooldridge, Coordinator of the Digital Library of the Caribbean, Florida
International University (and Spanish translator for the meeting)
Technical Host Institution:
Judith Russell, Dean of Libraries, University of Florida
Laurie Taylor, Technical Director for the Digital Library of the Caribbean, University of


Meeting began at 5:15pm

dLOC Update
1. Newsletter to promote and document dLOC activities


i. Garrison: offered to host the dLOC newsletter in the USF
DigitalCommons site to increase distribution and to aid with the
workflow process. dLOC newsletter is in dLOC, which is crawled
and indexed by Google and other major search engines. The cost for
USF with BePress/DigitalCommons is $1,500 for every new journal.
The Executive Board will investigate options.
b. Discussion on what to include in the newsletter:
i. Probst: Stories of how scholars are using dLOC
ii. Russell: Presentations and publications are very useful
iii. Russell: New projects like LLMC Digital
2. Subcommittees, grants and development, and new partner invitation updates
provided by Wooldridge.
a. Subcommittees
i. Technical Standards and Training: Metadata Guide in Process. This
is a simple 12 point guide, a sort of primer, is almost complete for
use with the extensive documentation already complete. The dLOC
Toolkit has moved online.
ii. Teaching and Outreach: Conferences and K-12 Outreach:
Wooldridge provided an overview of the work that's being done.
Ongoing need to develop more teaching opportunities within and
especially outside of Florida.
iii. Development
1. Haiti Island Luminous Grant for Digital Exhibit: dLOC
received private funding through FIU to create an online
exhibit that curates materials in dLOC on Haitian history for
education and outreach.
2. Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere Library
Enhancement Grant: dLOC received funds for the digital
acquisition of content from a researcher at UF to digitize and
host materials from the National Library of Jamaica. This is a
model project for digital acquisition done by funding
digitization, and dLOC hopes to expand on this because of the
benefit to all involved.
3. Florida International University Technology Fee Award: FIU
received a technology fee for $16,000 per year for 3 years for
student workers, translations, digitization/server space.
b. New Partner Invitation: revised and a copy is in the meeting packet after the
PHPI newsletter. The content is primarily the same with minor changes and
updates to the new look. Request for comments/changes to the invitation
now or at any time. This is on the dLOC website and can be personally sent
by request.

3. Funding Structure


a. Membership Levels for Financial Supporters
i. Types of supporters
1. dLOC Partners support with content
2. dLOC Members support with funding (can also support with
ii. Access
1. There will be no loss of access. All materials will remain
freely and fully available as open access.
iii. Funding
1. Discussion about setting up Foundation account at FIU to
receive charitable support for dLOC.
b. Draft Letter to Libraries
i. Wooldridge:
1. Sample funding levels are in the packet just after the new
partner invitation. This document was created to start the
conversation about what member level funding would look
like. Thankfully we started these conversations 1-2 years ago.

A few weeks ago, we received news from TICFIA that the
program was cancelled, not at the end of the funding cycle,
but at the end of this grant year, on September 30, 2011.

The document in the packet identifies a supporting and
sustaining member level and different costs for US and
Caribbean member levels.

Conversations since this was created have stated that there
needs to be additional funding levels in the letter because the
jump is too high.
ii. We need to distinguish between PARTNERS and MEMBERS.
Partners would be those who contribute to building the content in
dLOC. Members would support financially. Partners can also be
members. This allows institutions and individuals that don't have
content to still support dLOC and help it to grow.
1. Taylor: For terminology clarification, could "advocate" be
2. Russell: No. The terms and terminology need to be in known
categories for fiscal offices to smoothly process payment -
"member" works whereas "advocate" would not.
iii. Rogers: Are we discussing restricting content?
iv. Russell: No. Research libraries are sensitive to the fact of the need to
sustain. This is the model with open source software and others.


v. Probst: It's a good citizen, good stewardship model. It's not a quid
pro quo. It's really a "we see some value in the organization and
we'd like to be part of supporting the organization". It's not tied to
access. The fundamental value of dLOC is that it's open access to
these resources. It's just a matter of adding another layer or
opportunity for others to promote and perpetuate dLOC. It's a
fundamental value.
vi. Nufiez: Partners can also contribute by promoting the opportunity to
support dLOC to individuals in their country for individuals.
vii. Garrison and Probst: Discussion is whether to establish a nonprofit
or foundation to ensure individuals can receive a tax deduction for
any donations. Can this run through universities and/or how would
an alternative need to be set up to ensure that dLOC would still be
eligible for grants? There will be further investigation on this.
viii. Russell: LLMC-Digital project supporters were supporting the same
model. First supporting this intellectually, and then financially.
ix. Rogers: What happens to Brooke?
x. Probst: That's recognized as paramount. We have to retain Brooke.
We need to sustain her and I'm working on that. We need to have
this conversation so that we can have other sources to ensure that we
have permanent funding to sustain dLOC ongoing, but I think we
need 3 years to make this happen.
xi. All: Unanimous agreement and on the need to retain Brooke (and not
simply the position) because of her excellence.
xii. Garrison and Russell: For those who would be partners and members
(or just members), we would need to ask for a commitment for 3
years to ensure we could put other supports in place. We don't want
to keep coming back to this every year.
xiii. Russell: It's important to make sure that everyone knows that we are
not changing the fundamental model. We want to know how partners
in the Caribbean will feel about this model and if this is workable
and appropriate?
xiv. Rogers: I tend to speak both languages: Caribbean and US. I think
partners will agree with this. They've seen the value of dLOC and
not only for researchers, but also for those working in this region. I
think they'll also understand
xv. Wooldridge: Do the funding levels look appropriate?
xvi. Rogers: They look good to me.
xvii. Rogers and Russell: It makes sense to include three funding levels
for both US and Caribbean partners.
xviii. Greenberg: Might we want to think about membership and
governance? Does it offer rights in governance for supporting


xix. Russell: This is a content partnership organization. The different
levels may allow for digitization/selection of content. It may be that
we have 1 board member seat that represents all member/not-
partners. There would not be a representative from each partner-
xx. Baker: Also, the member/partner is the ideal.
xxi. Probst: This is still a partner-driven/content-driven organization.
xxii. Russell: In the first paragraph of the letter, we need to make obvious
that OPEN ACCESS remains (bold or otherwise emphasize this).
This is a formatting issue, but we want to make sure it's
xxiii. Rogers: There will be members who contribute rich resources but
who may not be able to contribute money.
xxiv. Russell: We need to express in the bylaws that content is the driving
force. This is still going to be a partner-driven organization.
xxv. Probst: Those who hold and share the content are the ones
building the resource. This is a partner-driven organization.
xxvi. Greenberg: The Stanford encyclopedia uses this sort of model.
xxvii. Taylor: As do HathiTrust, Cornell's arXiv, and TRAIL.
xxviii. Baker: We need to be careful about what we say in the bylaws.
xxix. Probst, Rogers, and Wooldridge: The executive board makes the
decision on this. I think we should formally make the decision that
we move forward, pending discussion of the general board
tomorrow, with follow-up after to clarify in the bylaws.
xxx. Russell: I move that the Executive Board recommend to dLOC
General members (partners) at the June 3 meeting adoption of the
funding structure as amended this evening.
xxxi. Newton: seconded
xxxii. Passed unanimously.
xxxiii. Executive Board institutions that committed their partner (financial)
support during the meeting: UF, FIU, UCF, UVI, USF

4. Executive Committee
a. Elections
b. Length of Terms
c. Length of Leadership and Succession
i. Wooldridge: This was not established before and now needs to be
done because Newton is retiring. Board should have 9
representatives: 3 named positions and 6 member positions.
ii. Baker: Each person serves 3 years with staggered terms for 1/3 to go
off every year. That's pretty standard and less than 3 years is not
enough. It could be longer if wanted.


iii. Wooldridge: Current board started in 2008. Is everyone in their
position willing to continue to serve? Everyone does wish to
continue, so someone will be randomly selected to cycle off.
iv. Baker: Board members can have 2 successive terms, but must then
remain off for 1 year before being on the Executive Board again.
v. Wooldridge: With all of this agreed to, will follow up for holding

5. Bylaws
a. Probst and Wooldridge recommended changing fiscal year from the grant
year to the academic fiscal year. This was accepted.
b. Wooldridge: With the Executive Board's staggered terms, there may be
minor changes in the election procedure. She will check and update the
Board if needed.

6. 2011/2012 Goals and Plans
a. New projects on the horizon include:
i. Russell: UF will be collaborating with LLMC-Digital to digitize
Cuban Law and then future projects as well.
ii. Wooldridge encouraged everyone to send her new projects for
inclusion in the newsletter.

7. Any Other Business