Meeting documents for Wednesday meeting in South Bend

It just seems to be happening this way, but I am missing another north Pacific County meeting. Last year it was in Raymond, this year in South Bend. But, even though I won’t be making it, here are the materials for the trustees meeting.

Mostly financial and roundup stuff from Spring adult reading in the materials packet.

A lot more interesting reading in the agenda itself.

My thoughts:

1. Round up of a meeting with Random House and Harper Collins. Mike Cross, the library director, was recently back on the east coast for a conference. While he was there he met with folks from these two publishing companies, one of which we talked about during a recent meeting.

2. Strategic planning. We’re moving from an five year cycle to an ongoing/yearly planning process. Hopefully this will include an online component like this one, but the trustees will be discussing it at the next meeting.

3. Possible annexations and facilities. At the last meeting trustee John Braun voiced the desire to talk about annexing in more Lewis County communities. Apparently, work was already being done in this regard, and the attending trustees will hear about efforts in Napavine, Morton and Mossyrock. They’ll also hear about Facility reports in Oakville, Yelm, Lacey and Cosmopolis.



Filed under Meeting reports

6 responses to “Meeting documents for Wednesday meeting in South Bend

  1. Kelsey Smith

    Thanks for posting this, Emmett. Do you have any idea of the intent to discuss internet filtering at a future meeting? Are there concerns with the current structure?

    • emmettoconnell

      John Braun had a list of topics at the end of the last meeting that he wanted to bring up before his time on the board elapsed and filtering was one topic.

      Obviously, we haven’t done anything since the state Supreme Court ruled on the North Central case. But, since this case originated in the federal courts, and there has been no ruling at all in that venue, there is little incentive for me to move forward based on that case.

      Also, I don’t have any problems with the current policy. I think it strikes a nice balance between the needs and political realities in our various communities.

      That said, having three different policies on use of the internet in TRL seems cumbersome to me. But, I wouldn’t want to approach consolidating those just for the sake of consolidation, since the current system seems to work.

      On the other hand, I think its worth having a serious conversation about moving beyond content filtering of internet resources in the library and moving forward with content curation: Its one thing to filter content viewable by our patrons in a negative sense, its something different (and I think something we need to start doing) to begin curating relevant local resources.

  2. Kelsey Smith

    When you talk about content curation, what do you have in mind? Are you talking about deciding what people can click through on for the catalog computers, or our internet computers? We do some content curation through our internet resource pages…

    • emmettoconnell

      No, not at all deciding for people what they can access, but developing local, dynamic and interactive collections.

      By the way, sorry for taking so long to get back to this comment. I kept on reminding myself to get back to you, but kept on slipping my mind.

      The current internet resources page is a great example of a net 1.0 version of what I’m thinking of. Its a nice start, but it isn’t updated nearly enough or is interactive enough.

      Its also a bit too general. We have the ability now to narrow down resources to very time and place specific topics. So yes, much much much more of that.

  3. lhisareish

    Emmett, your perspective on the TRL Board of Trustees and willingness to share what information you’re legally able to is much appreciated. Please let your blog followers know when the Board meeting to vote on the employees contract will be scheduled. Assuming that it will be a public meeting.Thanks

    • Thanks! The meeting will of course be publicly announced, and my assumption is that votes (and discussions) of setting district wide pay levels must happen in public. So, the meeting to approve the contract would be public.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s