| | About M25 | InforM25 | Access |

home / about M25 / working groups / advocacy home page / <<

# 15 March 2005 Advocacy Working Party Meeting Minutes

Advocacy Working Party

## Notes from the meeting held at the Wellcome Trust.

Present: Máire Lanigan (St. Mary's & Chair), John Gilby (LSE - Minutes), Marysia Henty (LSE), Frances Norton (Wellcome Library) Madura Rasaratnam (LSE).

Apologies & Membership: Apologies were received from Julie Howell (London Metropolitan University), and Janet Percival (UCL).

William Marsterson (Middx) had indicated his desire to stand down from the group membership having taken over as chair of the Resource Discovery Working Group. The group recorded its thanks for his contribution over the years.

ML led a discussion regarding ideas for boosting the group's membership as no volunteers had come forward as a result of the January Consortium meeting. A number of individuals and M25 institutions were identified to approach about getting involved. The group agreed that ideally, new members with appropriate marketing and/or copy writing skills would be advantageous. Action ML through M25 Chair to make contact with potential group members.

## 1. Previous Meeting Minutes & Matters Arising

The minutes from the previous meeting held at the LSE on 3 December 2004 were agreed as a true and accurate record subject to correcting the action numbering in Item 3. (Subsequently corrected on website.)

### Review of Actions:

- 3.1 & 3.2 MH & MR had revised the top ten facts ready for the Annual Report printing deadline (see also under Item 5 below), actions complete.
- 3.3 MR had updated the relevant web page for top ten facts, action complete.
- 3.4 JH/NM/MH had drafted a press release for the Disaster WG and were awaiting comments. New Action 1.1 MH to chase comments and also send draft to the group.
- 3.5 JG had added a link to the SCONUL guide to writing press releases on the AWG web pages, action complete.
- 3.6 MR had circulated a list of potential recipient publications for press releases, action complete.
- 41 JG had assisted with the preparations for the group's presentation at the January Consortium meeting, action complete.
- 4.2 ML had attempted to recruit new members at the January Consortium meeting, action complete.
- 7.1 ML had arranged the next meeting, action complete.

### Matters Arising

There were none.

## 2. Review of AWG Action Plan

ML introduced this item by commenting that the plan had not been updated recently and that this ought to be considered. Some discussion took place about the role of the group and possible ways to promote the Consortium. MR reported that at the recent Steering Group meeting, it had been decided that the existing Consortium Development Plan would be replaced with a new docuemnt, a strategy document, in time for the June 2005 Consortium meeting. From this new document would come an Operational Plan which will have tangeable items as deliverables. The AWG and other groups would input into this Operational Plan.

MR also reported that the Steering Group had agreed at its last meeting on the need for a quarterly e-bulletin, produced by the AWG, that would update staff in member institutions on the Consortium's developments. Action 2.1 MR to compile and circulate, before each AWG meeting, a document containing an update of the activities of the working groups and the steering group. This document would be used to produce the e-bulletin.

It was agreed that the existing Action Plan will be left for the time being until the new strategic document was ready.

Other highlights from the discussion included:

- Creating some 'standard sentences' that describe the Consortium and its benefits to students. Action 2.2 ML to draft sentences and circulate to the group.
- Use of some form of poster presentation at Consortium events such as CPD25 and Consortium meetings. This could be used for outreach to established audiences.

## 3. Awareness Survey Report

ML had previously sent out a draft report on the 2004 Awareness Survey and commented that the intention was that the draft formed the basis of a report to the Steering Group, the website and an article for publication. Following discussion, it was agreed that good places to submit articles would be Cilip Update and the SCONUL Newsletter. FN and MH were willing to assist with working on the draft to develop two papers by the end of March:

- Action 3.1 FN to look at a report for communicating the survey results within the M25 community.
- Action 3.2 MH to work on a report for communicating the survey results to the broader library community and information professionals.

JG reported that he and MR had drafted some Word templates intended to be used for Consortium documentation. Although not yet approved by the Steering Group, the templates could be made available to the group. Action 3.3 JG to i) make templates available to group, ii) paste draft Awareness Survey document into a suitable template ready for FN/MH to 'test' the template, and iii) create templates for press releases and use of M25 headed notepaper.

## 4. Update on the M25 Website Review

ML reminded the group of the people taking part in the web review sub-group and reported that the following week, MH was facilitating a meeting to consider what the requirements for the website were. For this meeting, some additional M25 officers were also invited.

It was agreed that the website must be an effective advocacy tool and that the review needs to evaluate, look at maintaining and promote a consistent brand image. The website was briefly looked at during the meeting and it was noted that there is some loss of identity when moving from the Consortium home page to the InforM25 service pages.

## 5. Annual Report, Top Ten Facts and Press Releases

ML reported that the Top Ten Facts were updated and 'signed off' in order to meet the Annual Report printing deadline. It was suggested that for some of the facts, a comparator was still thought to be benificial and this ought to be considered further.

Discussion then took place about the Annual Report and ML suggested that the next report, for academic year 2004/2005, ought to be ready for distribution before the January 2006 Consortium meeting so the group will need to start looking at it soon. Other key points from the discussion were:

- The report is aimed at M25 member libraries and others outside of the Consortium such as Vice Chancellors and Chief Executives in order to promote the Consortium's work.
- A list of Consortium members was suggested for the rear cover.
- Financial data will need to be included for 2004/05

FN and MH volunteered to coordinate the 2004/05 Annual Report. Action 5.1 FN/MH to work out timescales accociated with the next report and notify the group of this and any other relevant issues.

## 6. Meeting dates for 2005

It was thought preferable that the AWG meetings should take place just before future Steering Group meetings. Action 6.1 MR to look at possible AWG meeting dates for 2005 and also to inform AWG members when Steering Group minutes are approved, highlighting any issues relevant to the group.

Minutes by JG/MR

Back to M25 Advocacy Working Group Home Page