MOUSS Evaluation of Reference and User Services Committee

Virtual Meeting 09 June 2003 - 27 June 2003

Agenda & Action Items

1. Approve past minutes
Midwinter meetings were approved by committee after changes were made.

2. Orlando Program proposal
Susan and Lanell sent the committee a draft proposal for the guidelines-related program in Orlando for review and comment. The committee approved the proposal after several changes. The program title will be Developing a New Definition of Reference: Guidelines for Measuring References in the 21st Century.This is a go for the conference in 2004.

3. Bibliography of reference
Barb and Sue sent the committee a draft of the bibliography they put together for comment and approval. Committee approved the bibliography after changes were implemented. It was suggested that an executive summary would be useful for the lengthy bibliography. The hope is that the bibliography will be published in a RUSA publication to reach a broad group.

Update: Barb contacted RUSA to make sure that if this was put on the web site it could still be published as an article and received affirmation. The introduction will serve as he executive summary.

4. Definitions of reference
Completed Action Items from Lisa’s email of 6/26/03

  • Barb found the NCES definition of a reference transaction from the Academic Library Survey (NCES/ALS MW 03 #5 04/26/02, revised 10/15/02).
  • Gordon will look at the stats on the ARL page.
  • Jake found that the Oberlin Group employs the NCES definition of reference as its standard.
  • Lisa found that in fact it was NCES and not NISO, which wrote the new definition for ALS (Academic Library Survey) in 2002.
  • Lanell will research the Federal Cooperative System for Public Library Data and provide feedback in terms of public library stats. Nothing to report.

5. Pre-conference recap
Paula Contreras was to send the committee a pre-conference recap per Lisa Horowitz. Jake pursued following the report from her. The committee still awaits the report. There may be actions resulting from the pre-conference and the committee should plan for any future repeats (per Lisa).


  • 27 people were registered, but due to the cancellation of other pre-conferences, the total attendance was 41.
  • Maximum satisfaction scores were received through the evaluations by most participants. Most said they learned quite a bit and could take the content away to apply at their home institutions.
  • For future planning the lunch break needs to be longer than one hour.

6. Guidelines
Susan and Lanell will be sending out a timeline and a list of action items. The survey should be compiled and reviewed by the committee before sending out.

Respectfully submitted by
Claudia Epps-Timmann
Updates by Barb Mann