MLA SGO Social Hour!

This October SGO hosted a social hour at the Minnesota Library Association meeting in St Cloud, MN. We had over 20 students, St Kate's alums, and friends attend the gathering in the Raddison Hotel!

The social hour was a fun time to informally meet and network with fellow students and librarians who are working in libraries all around the state. Plus we had some yummy appetizers for all... Here I (Tanya Cothran) am with Leslie Hunter-Larson (on the left) enjoying the onion rings!

The Minnesota Library Association has a great student rate and so it is really inexpensive to join and get access to lots of great networking opportunities. I really enjoyed meeting practicing librarians at the MLA Conference this year. It was reassuring and interesting to hear about the huge range of jobs and positions each librarian had held during their career. It means I don't have to worry too much about finding a job now that I am going to have forever! Anyway, everyone was really friendly and happy to talk with a soon-to-be graduate about their library experiences and I would highly encourage other students to attend the MLA conference next October.

Here are more pictures of librarians chatting and eating...

SGO Meeting Minutes - November 9th

MLIS Student Governance Organization
November 9, 2009 – 5:30-6:30pm – CdC 005
Meeting Minutes

1. Committee Updates
a. Recruitment
i. We first discussed how we can effectively recruit new people to join SGO. We think that a personal invitation (by students but more likely from faculty) would give people the extra nudge to get involved. We would like to talk to the faculty to get each to invite at least one person. We also can use SGO social events to give personal appeals for membership (like the Winter Social Hours before class). Laura Clark will also update the blog regularly (adding minutes and agendas) to tell people about what we are doing and to show that we are an active group.
b. Open Positions
i. Still need someone for the Finance Committee. Also, faculty putting together chapters for the Accreditation still need students for Chapter 1 (Mission/Goals) and Chapter 5 (Administrative/Financial Support).
c. GradBoard Update
i. The GradBoard met last month and we discussed a lot about what we could all do as a grad student community at St Kate. There seemed to be some interest about bringing in a speaker that all students would be interested in hearing. Other ideas were research days or workshops for all grad students.
ii. Brigette Marty (bmmarty@stkate.edu) is the GradBoard coordinator.

2. Accreditation Efforts (Presentation by David Peterson; MLIS student)
a. David came to speak to SGO about his efforts (working one day each week with Marilyn Cathcart, the department, and Dean Colleen Hegrenes) to work toward a successful accreditation bid next year.
b. He sees his role as promoting a “student-centered” accreditation process with lots of clear communication to students about what is going on in the process. One of his goals is to do everything possible to assure that everyone who has gone through the St Kate MLIS program has an accredited degree.
c. He did some research about the “look-back” period for the accreditation and found that ALA actually has a generous policy compared with other professional accrediting bodies.
d. Deb Torres told us that one of the biggest changes in the presentation this time is showing systematic collection of data, then analyzing that data, making decisions based on the outcomes and then documenting why decisions were made.

3. Budget Report
a. Brief report to say that we are still doing very well and had a successful SGO Speaker Event (with Andras Reidlmayer), which did not cost too much.
b. Tanya will follow up with Andras about his speaker fee and reimbursements.

4. Transition of old/new SGO and Information Storage
a. Tanya has added all her SGO-related documents to the Google Docs site. She will also transfer everything off the Moodle site, so that it can be retired.
b. Brigette Marty (GradBoard Coordinator) has passed along some questions to foster institutional memory and event planning and follow-up. They have been added to the “SGO General Docs” folder in Google Docs.

5. Winter Cookies Nights
a. This event should be coordinated with Marilyn Cathcart for the first week of classes in the Winter semester (NOW IN FEBRUARY).
b. We had 3 sessions each from 5-6pm on class nights. The idea is to get people when they are there for class anyway and get people to talk with classmates outside of class time.

6. Form committee for next SGO Speaker
a. This should happen early Winter semester – so that we can work with a longer timeline than we had for this year’s event.
b. We should contact St Kate’s Media and Communication office at least 6 months in advance to help promote our event.
c. Brigette Marty (bmmmarty@stkate.edu) is a good resource for planning; also check out the “Events” Folder on Google Docs.

7. Upcoming Events:
a. Next SGO Meeting (Last of Fall Semeter) will be Dec. 7th from 5:30-6:30pm.

SGO Minutes from Oct. 12th, 2009

MLIS Student Governance Organization
October 12, 2009 – 5:30-6:30pm – CdC 005
Meeting Minutes

Attendance: Leslie Hunter-Larson, Tanya Cothran, Becky Arenivar, Heather Lewis, Michael Mitchell, Laura Clark


1. What is SGO? Student Governance at St Kate’s.
a. We are one of 8 grad programs at St Kates. Together we all make up the
Graduate Student Advisory Board - GSAB (also called GradBoard). We send a
rep to the monthly meetings to get updates from other programs and approve
funding. (See GSAB Meeting Minutes attached to email.)
b. SGO has funds in our account from student activities fees. Just this month
we finally were able to get a separate account number for our funds (it used
to all be held in a joint account with all other grad programs).
c. SGO represents the 200+ students in the MLIS program. In addition to serving
on committees we also make informational presentations at the MLIS
orientation and in the 7010 classes.
i. This year we may want to consider presenting to the Management class to
recruit students who have finished their first year of classes and may be
more ready to get involved with student governance.

2. Budget Report
a. Current balance: $27,415 (This total includes money from many years where
the College was collecting fees and there was not a mechanism for spending
them…)
b. We receive about $4,500 each year from the Student Activities fee (based on
the number of students in our program). Part of the SA fee also goes to a
GSAB General Fund and to a facilities fee for SCU.
c. Last year we used $4,331 in grants to students to attend conferences and
department functions (such as the All Student Gathering and the Graduate
Reception).
d. The Finance Committee approves funds requests that come in to SGO. Typically
we fund department functions aimed at students, $200 for conference travel
(more if student is presenting), other large events (i.e. speaker series)

3. Committee Sign-up
a. Thank you for signing up for committees! (See Committee Roster attached to
email)
b. We still need to recruit a few more people to fill open committee seats.
c. Open are:
i. Curriculum Sub-Committee
ii. SGO Finance Committee
iii. Elections and Public Relations Committee

4. Upcoming Events
a. Social Hour @ MLA
i. This was a great success! We had 25 students and St Kates alums attend
b. Andras Riedlmayer on “Art Documentation and War Crimes: Librarianship in the
Aftermath of War” – Saturday, Oct 24th, 2-4pm @ Jeanne d’Arc Auditorium
i. We are all set for the presentation tomorrow!
ii. We have invited librarians in the field, MLIS students and all St Kate’s
students.
iii. Hopefully this will be just the beginning of a yearly MLIS SGO Speaker
Series.

Respectfully submitted by Tanya Cothran. October 23, 2009

Fall 2009 SGO Committee Roster

Curriculum Sub-Committee (2):
Laura Clark
OPEN

Finance Committee (3):
Leslie Hunter-Larson
Tanya Cothran
OPEN

GradBoard (GSAB) Representative (1):
Tanya Cothran
Alternate: Leslie Hunter-Larson

Department Meeting Committee (2-3):
Leslie Hunter-Larson
Michael Mitchell
Alternate: Laura Clark

Department Liaison (1):
Leslie Hunter-Larson

Advisory Council Committee (2):
Heather Lewis
Laura Clark

Elections & Public Relations Committee (2):
Becky Arenivar
OPEN

Executive Committee (3-4):
Tanya Cothran
Leslie Hunter-Larson
Becky Arenivar

Faculty Advisor:
Deb Torres

MLA Conference 2009

A Report by Louann Terveer

Thanks to the SGO Professional Development Funds I was able to attend one jam packed day of the 2009 MLA conference. The conference day was comprised of a broad choice of topics over four sessions, a lunch time keynote speaker and the opportunity to talk with exhibitors.

The presentation that I attended in the first session was titled "Best Practices for Creating Online Tutorials." The speaker's focus was on a list of practices to consider when planning and designing online tutorials. The biggest impression on me, though, was the demonstration and finding out how easy it is to create tutorials using video screen capturing software such as Camtasia or Captivate.

The second session was a combination of Trends in Technical Services/RDA Update/MLA Tech Services Section business meeting. We hear that RDA (Resource Description and Access) may soon replace AACR2 cataloging standards in classes, but it was good to hear more about where RDA is in the implementation process. It turns out that 23 institutions (the most local being the Minn. Historical Society) have been chosen to test RDA in 2010. It was discussed at the session that RDA won't be approved until after Oct. 2010, and that after that time institutions will make the change when it makes sense for them. A great resource for the Tech Services themed presentations is their blog at http://sites.google.com/site/minnesotatss/

In the afternoon, "Workflows for Outsourced Technical Services" gave me a taste of the day to day decisions and concerns that Tech Services encounter, which are hard to fully appreciate through classroom learning. This panel discussed their experiences in receiving and using vendor supplied cataloging records. It seems that overall, the librarians thought that it was a cost saving measure over original cataloging, but that one must factor in time needed to fix up unsatisfactory records and the changes in work-flow to accommodate this--a time vs. cost savings challenge. Some were very frank in admitting that there needs to be a minimum "good enough" established within an institution's tech services in order to keep some sort of standard, while making the best use of time.

Finally, in Strategic planning for E-Resources Management it was again interesting to hear a first-hand account from librarians. Two of the presenters discussed how they incorporated a strategic plan as a way to clarify and define roles and workflow for overlapping resources between the E-resources Librarian and Serials Manager of Gustavus Adolphus.

Overall, I learned more about the challenges and conversations going on in libraries. I was surprised that I wasn't as clueless in the sessions as I thought I might be; my classes at St. Kate's are preparing me well!

Caralyn Champa Reports from the 2009 SLA Conference

I’d like to thank Tanya Cothran for encouraging me to apply for the SGO’s Professional Development Funds. These funds will help defray the costs I incurred while attending the Special Libraries Association’s (SLA) Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. in June, 2009. This post is intended to share information about my experience at the SLA Conference with other MLIS students.

Attending this year’s SLA Conference was a priority for me as I am seeking employment in a federal library setting. Not only does SLA have a sub-group called the “Government Information Division,” the conference was going to take place in Washington, D.C. It seemed like a great opportunity to learn about the range of government librarians and to meet special librarians from a variety of backgrounds and specialties. I diligently reviewed the pre-conference brochure, sketched out a schedule of the sessions I especially wanted to attend, packed up comfortable yet dressy clothes and footwear, and headed to our Capital City! I hope you’ll enjoy the list I’ve created below. If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email (caralyn_c@yahoo.com).

Caralyn’s SLA Conference 2009 Tips, Learnings, and Resources

• Try to attend SLA and similar conferences while you are still in graduate school because:
• Registration fees are much lower for students, and there may be opportunities to apply for funding from the Student Governance Organization (SGO) and other student groups (http://www.stkate.edu/~mlisweb/current/scholarships.php).
• Having a badge that says “Graduate Student” is like having a free pass to ask anyone and everyone questions at the conference. It is a great conversation starter, and on the whole, people were interested in where I went to school, what I was focusing on in my studies, and what I thought of the conference.
• Listen carefully during the sessions you attend and be prepared to stand up and ask a question when the presenter opens the floor to the audience.
• It found it startling and disappointing that there was little audience engagement or participation in these Q & A sessions. Even if I was not familiar with the speakers or the topic, I tried to have a few questions ready to ask, and in the event that the room was quiet, I would stand up and ask one of them. In part, I feel this is a respectful thing to do for a speaker who has presumably put hours of effort and thought into preparing his or her presentation. If you have a question, asking it during the Q & A is simply the best way to get an answer, and by asking it in public, the other session attendees will benefit from hearing the speaker’s response. Finally, because I had asked questions at several different sessions, the speakers recognized who I was when I went up front to speak with them and to introduce myself. It is intimidating at first, but try to remember that most of the presenters are excited about their topics and genuinely want to discuss them with attendees.
• Even though you might feel like you have to attend as many sessions as possible, take breaks and explore city where the conference is taking place.
• Over the lunch hour on Monday, June 16, I visited the National Portrait Gallery before the afternoon sessions started. Upon entering the museum, I was delighted and surprised to find myself in front of Shepard Fairey's Barack Obama "Hope" poster. This is a hugely important and iconic work of art and I was right there, seeing it with my own eyes! In case you’d like to get a sense of what it’s like in person, here’s a link to one of the museum’s blog entries about it (http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2009/01/now-on-view-portrait-of-barack-obama-by-shepard-fairey.html). As the daughter of an art teacher, it was a delight to see the different techniques the artist used, and as a librarian-in-training, it was fascinating to see the original version of a work of art that has been at the center of a copyright controversy. Interestingly, the session I attended that afternoon was about copyright issues in today’s climate of social networking applications. One of the speakers was a lawyer from the Associated Press (AP). Why does this matter? Well, the AP and Mr. Fairey are suing each other because of the copyright issues regarding the “Hope” poster. This MSNBC article from February 2009 provides a good overview of the situation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29103976/). If you are interested in reading Mr. Fairey’s opinions about the situation, here’s a link to one of his blog postings regarding the lawsuit (http://obeygiant.com/headlines/the-ap-obama-referencing). During the Q & A, one of the audience members asked the AP lawyer about this case, and she replied that she was not able to comment on it, since the case was on-going. At that point, I trotted up to the microphone and encouraged the audience (and panel members!) to take a 3-block walk to the National Portrait Gallery in order to see this work of art in person so they could develop their own opinions on the matter. It was a nervous-making moment for me, but it felt important to tell other conference attendees about this amazing resource just down the street.
• Access the conference or association’s web site every few days after the conference ends in order to review the presentation slides and handouts that may have been uploaded.
• At SLA 2009, there were often more than 15 concurrent sessions at each time slot. I don’t know about you, but I can’t be in two places at once, much less 15 places at once! Therefore, I am glad that the SLA has a web page where they have the resources they have received from conference speakers. I have accessed this page (http://www.sla.org/content/Events/conference/ac2009/Conference/handouts/index.cfm) several times since the conference, and it has been fun to review slides from presentations I attended, and it has been beneficial to have access to resources from sessions I couldn’t attend. I encourage you to take a look at this link, as you will likely find a topic of interest to you.

When I came back from this conference, I was excited about what I had learned and who I had met, disappointed about a few of the sessions, thrilled about having spent time in D.C., and exhausted from several days of intense learning, socializing, and site-seeing. Now that several weeks have passed, I can appreciate the value of having attended SLA 2009, and I encourage you to consider attending a conference like this while you are still at St. Kate’s. Happy Learning!

Minutes from Advisory Council Meeting

Thanks to Debbie Yang for providing the minutes. The formatting is a little ugly - I just wanted to get them up right away.
-Liz

MLIS Advisory Council

5 March 2009

4:00-5:30am

CdC 495


AGENDA

I. Welcome and Introductions – Mary
II. COA Decision
III. Response
a. Assessment
b. Curriculum
c. Faculty Research
IV. Annual MLIS Summit – April 27, 2009


MLIS Advisory Council

5 March 2009

4:00-5:30am

CdC 495


MINUTES


Present: Jerry Baldwin, Marilyn Cathcart, Liz Scheibel, Margaret Gillespie, Karen Harwood, Bob Horton, Chris Jacobs, Patricia Post, Susan Shoemaker, Sehri Strom, Ann Treacy, Mary Wagner and Debbie Yang.

Debbie Yang took the minutes.

I. Welcome and Introductions
a. Everyone introduced themselves.

II. COA Decision
a. At the January meeting 25th meeting with COA decided to continue the College of St. Catherine’s MLIS program on candidacy. This decision affects all students and in particular those who have graduated from the program or are planning to do so in May 2009, as they will not have a degree from an accredited program. The faculty and College administrators are preparing additional documentation for COA to address the issues in their decision letter. The documents will be sent to COA on March 13, in preparation for meeting with COA on April 17th. Andrea Lee, IHM, the President of College of St. Catherine, Colleen Hegranes, Senior Vice President, and Jennie Robinson Kloos, Director of the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning, will be at the COA meeting on the April 17th. Mary Wagner, Director of the MLIS program, will also be attending.
b. Mary read excerpts from the decision letter from COA continuing candidacy for the MLIS program. COA has six standards for LIS programs. Out of these six standards, COA had concerns with the MLIS program on Standard I, II, and III. COA’s concerns on Standard I: Mission, Goals, and Objectives included assessment in terms of what data does the program collect and how is it used. Their concerns with Standard II: Curriculum include the changes being made to the curriculum with the IMLS grant. For Standard III: Faculty, COA is concerned with the support for faculty research.
c. Faculty have been working in two groups on response documentation - one on curriculum (Standard II) and the other on assessment (Standard I). The response to the support on Faculty Research will be addressed by Sister Andrea and Colleen Hegranes.
III. Response

a. Assessment.
i. Members of the Advisory Council were asked to look through the Assessment document within the next few days and to send any comments to Mary. The final document will be sent out on Friday, March 13. The purpose of the Assessment document is to show that we do assessment through data collection, analysis of data and this is used in decision making for program effectiveness and student learning. The Advisory Council was asked to focus on whether the document is successful in making this case to COA.
ii. The Advisory Council was asked for any immediate questions or comments on the assessment document. The argument for the response is that the MLIS program has met the standard. It includes data from the program presentation (pulling assessment pieces from throughout the program presentation into one) as well as including new data in an effort to make the information clearer to COA.
iii. The 2012 date in the COA letter is flexible, so the MLIS program is asking for a focus visit on these three standards in Fall with a new decision in January. For current grads and students ready to graduate, a look back for two years will be suggested. It is not known if there were any reversals in COA history, but COA has agreed to our request to meet on April 17th. If Advisory Council members want to write a letter to COA (especially as they have employed or are employing students from the MLIS program), they should write about the program in terms of the standards as it is ALA’s responsibility to see that programs meet them. MLA will send a letter to COA, the ALA president, and the ALA Executive Director. Mary will talk to SGO on whether they will send a letter to COA from students. The site visit was from the External Review Panel (ERP) who gave positive feedback. They wrote a report and sent it to COA to review. The decision for accreditation comes from COA based on this review and the program presentation from the MLIS program.

b. Curriculum.
i. The Curriculum document was sent to the Advisory Council electronically. Faculty member, Marilyn Cathcart, walked the Advisory Council through the Curriculum document. In summary, the program does meet the standard, the curriculum has been mapped to the Standards, the curriculum has had some changes as classes have been added and some have been taken away, and the IMLS grant is being used to enhance the curriculum and is not being used to do a major re-design. Since the External Review Panel was here, faculty have continued to work on the curriculum and added a research course and portfolio requirement. The current curriculum is synched with ALA Standards, and the College of St. Catherine student learning objectives. The Curriculum document quotes the concerns from COA letter on Standard II and addresses each concern.
ii. The Advisory Council was asked for any immediate questions or comments on the curriculum document. If Members have comments in the next few days, they can send them to Mary or Marilyn. It was suggested to put the tables in the appendices. In support of the first table (illustrating new courses, etc) it should be mentioned that the MLIS program communicates with the Advisory Council and this influences change in courses. LIS 7240 is an example of a course change based on assessment data. This summer the course will include use of various technologies including clickers, e-book readers and smartboards. To clear up some confusion on old and new versions of course, samples of old and new syllabi could be added as evidence. The MLIS program has been teaching an ALA accredited curriculum (from Dominican University) with some changes. It is the responsibility of faculty to continue to move forward with curriculum, incorporate suggestions from the Advisory Council, and connect to the College of St. Catherine as an institution. Dominican was on conditional accreditation for 3 years, and received full accreditation in Spring 2008. This situation of the MLIS program obtaining accreditation is unique because of the partnership with an already accredited institution.

c. Faculty Research
i. The President and the Vice President of the College of St. Catherine will be addressing this issue at the April 17th meeting.
ii. In talking to Karen O’Brien, the COA concerns about faculty research were faculty productivity, having many junior faculty, and support for research. The College does hire junior faculty. And these junior faculty members are at the beginning of their productivity. Also need to consider that College of St. Catherine is not a Research I institution.
iii. Advisory Council Member, Bob Horton agreed to draft a paragraph for the response document to address COA and set the tone for the documents. Mary has met with employers such as MELSA and CLIC. She has been talking to the professional community about a timeline and the implications in hiring or working with students. Mary will be talking with SLA and MALL.
iv. As soon as the MLIS program hears from COA, they will let everyone know any changes. Students will then be making decisions about this term. Some have delayed completion of the program for this term. Those in the middle of their program will decide if they want to slow down their program. Those who started this January will decide whether to stay in the program or transfer to another. There are approximately 10 students on leave right now and are waiting to hear about the decision. There are also about 70 new applicants for the Fall term and 20 prospective students at the Graduate Information Sessions. The president of the College of St. Catherine and the president of Dominican University are in conversation.

IV. Annual MLIS Summit. The MLIS Summit will be on Monday, April 27 at 5:30pm in the ballroom. There will be more information about accreditation at this gathering of students, faculty, adjunct faculty, alums, employers and others interested in the program.

MLIS Advisory Council Meeting

Thank you to Liz Scheibel and Sehri Strom for attending the MLIS Advisory Council Meeting this week as SGO Representatives! Here are Liz's notes from the meeting:

• Mary Wagner conducted the meeting, with Debbie Yang taking notes. Other attendees were faculty Marilyn Cathcart and Susan Shoemaker, students Liz Scheibel and Sehri Strom, and about 6-8 librarians.
  
  
• The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the documents that the program and St. Kate’s are preparing to send to the ALA COA for review before the April meeting (all documents are in draft form). Mary began by describing the three standards in which COA saw problems.
  
  
• We looked at the assessment document, with Mary walking us through it. There wasn’t much discussion on that specific document, because it wasn’t available before the meeting. One librarian offered the suggestion that St. Kate’s should phrase their presentation in particular ways in order to not be confrontational - we want to suggest that we didn’t clearly show some of these things in our program presentation, and we want to show that the college (as a larger institution) has also investigated these issues (and then go on to present the college’s response).
  
  
• Mary mentioned that one of the things they are seeking from the COA is a longer look back period for those who have already graduated once the program gets accreditation. Usually the look back is one year, and they are hoping for two years. Other things they are asking for are an earlier visit (currently scheduled for 2012), preferably this coming fall. Of course they would love to see the COA reverse their decision, but that probably isn’t realistic. Mary also mentioned that since it’s not a decision meeting, she is hoping there can be more dialog between the people from CSC and the COA. She really wants to present to the COA that St. Kate’s is pressing the issue because it’s about the students - the students need accredited degrees and they’ve done the work for them.
  
  
• The librarians present wanted to know of letters from employers would help, and Mary said that they might if those letters specifically addressed how the program meets the COA standards. Minnesota Library Association will be sending a letter, and SGO is working on one.
  
  
• We talked about the issues the COA had with the revised curriculum that’s in the works at St. Kate’s. The feeling is that COA didn’t quite understand what this means, and we wondered if “revision” was the right word (perhaps that implies more sweeping change than it should). Also, CSC wants to make sure the COA understands that the program has still had Dominican students, so we could not step away from the relationship entirely until those students had completed their degrees.
  
  
• The draft document regarding curriculum was discussed, and the faculty asked for some help in toning it down; they have had a hard time not letting their emotions creep into the way they are writing the documents. The purpose of this document is to show that St. Kate’s has met the standards with the current curriculum, and that we have and will continue to have a defined curriculum, even as it is revised. Some changes have been made from DU, an accredited curriculum, but the basics remain the same. The draft we saw showed a lot of comparison to DU, but they are going to take out a lot of that in order to focus on the CSC program, to show that we have our own program.
  
  
• Other suggestions for the document included making the extensive tables into appendices and creating a sample of what a syllabus under the in-progress “new” curriculum would look like, compared to what is currently used (to show that it’s more of a tightening of the curriculum we already have, not a massive change in content).
  
  
• An interesting point that Mary made was that the accreditation process isn’t really designed for a program like ours: a program that has been operating through the accreditation of another school. Therefore, some of the process for accreditation doesn’t fit us very well and those involved on the other end of the process (COA and the panel) can easily misunderstand how the CSC-DU relationship has worked and is working now.
  
  
• Regarding the COA’s concerns about faculty research, the representatives from the College as a whole will primarily tackle this at the April meeting. The standards ask that an accredited program be in line with the parent organization in terms of faculty research, so it makes sense for the College to address this. They want to acknowledge that the MLIS faculty is rather young, and that is why some faculty members haven’t produced a lot of research yet; they are at the beginning of the productive cycle. The MLIS program has been interested in having some younger faculty in order to build for the future. Also, CSC doesn’t hire people into fully tenured faculty positions, so it’s important that COA understand that when evaluating how many of our faculty are tenured, etc.
  
  
• The meeting ended with more discussion on how to approach the April meeting and phrase all of the things we want to get across. The librarians present encouraged the MLIS program to begin by recognizing that some elements may have not been properly or clearly addressed in the program presentation - they should not walk in there and tell the COA that they just missed it all. CSC should embrace the opportunity to clarify and highlight things that will address COA’s concerns. They should thank the COA for helping CSC to evaluate itself carefully, for pushing the program to be the best it can, and for being conscientious stewards of the standards and accreditation (accreditation wouldn’t mean anything if just any program could get it).
  
  
• On a personal note, I think the documents that the faculty and college are working on look great. The department has been working a lot with the college’s institutional research office in order to add in more data, which it sounded like the COA would like to see. A huge amount of preparation is going into these documents and this meeting. The documents will be available for students to see once they are done (the versions that we saw had whole chunks missing and tables that had been thrown together that afternoon, so when I say draft, I really do mean draft). It’s a tough task to turn off your frustration and disappointment in order to meet with an open mind and try to achieve a better result. This meeting made me feel more optimistic than I had been feeling before.