Metropolitan Library Service Agency
Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Friday, February 6, 2026
Virtual Meeting via Teams
10:00am-12:00pm
Advisory Board Members/Representatives Present:
Anoka: Colleen Haubner Ramsey: Pang Yang
Carver: Jodi Edstrom Saint Paul: Maureen Hartman
Dakota: Jennifer Reichert Simpson Scott: Jen Schultz
Hennepin: Scott Duimstra Washington: Jacquie Kramer
Staff Present: Jennifer Baker, Abigail Dillon, Gina Goettl, Mona Scott, and Sherry Wichitchu
I. Call to order
Chair Duimstra called the meeting to order at 10:03am.
II. Introductions and Welcome
III. Consent Agenda
a) Approval of agenda
b) Approval of meeting minutes (January 9, 2026)
Motion to approve the agenda and meeting minutes by Haubner. Second by Edstrom.
Roll call vote:
ACL – aye HCL – aye SCL – aye
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
IV. Discussion/Action Items
a) Collection Development Task Force recommendation
The Collection Development Team Task Force met on January 27, 2026. The recommendations from the task force were distributed in the meeting packet and include: team makeup will include one representative per system, and then the team purpose, to maintain collection standards for user experience (and discontinue the previous team direction to find a solution to maintain hold ratios and decrease hold wait times). Some clarification is needed in the purpose section, whether these are ranked in order of priority, or general guidelines. Schultz clarified that in her experience, the charter is meant to guide discussions (guidelines or parameters instead of order of priority). Many of the directors agreed with this assessment. With a smaller team, it could be a good idea to consider changing Collection Development meetings to more frequent in-person meetings, and/or possibly changing the meeting from 1 hour twice a month to 2 hours once a month. Duimstra suggested striking point 3 in part a of the team composition section of the charter (removing additional observers). Haubner suggested changing “respect” to “understand” in part 2b, iv. (the responsibilities section). It was also suggested that this section should be more general and say something like “Recognize and respect varying capacities across libraries.”
Motion to approve the Collection Development Team charter, with the following changes: strike 2a, iii (additional observers), change language in 2b. ii to “Contribute during meetings while ensuring a welcoming environment for all team members to share”, and then revise 2b. iv to “Recognize and respect varying capacities across libraries.”
Motion by Haubner. Second by Edstrom.
Roll call vote:
ACL – aye HCL – aye SCL – aye
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
b) Collaborative Initiative Project
Based on discussions about each library’s specific literacy needs, there were a few commonalities across the systems: decodable books, early literacy focus, consultant interest, school partnerships, and READ Act alignment.
A few differences were target demographics, programmatic maturity, and material types. Areas where State Library Services can provide assistance are MDE personnel (the new State School Librarian can facilitate school-public library connections, and outreach staff from the Braille and Talking Book Library can assist with specialized programming) and also READ Act training.
The directors were supportive of a two- to three-year program for the initiative. It would be helpful to have a more in-depth conversation about the marketing plan. They were also supportive about using the LSAF formula to distribute funding. The directors thought an application process similar to Equity Funds would be a good idea, as well as periodic updates to the governing board on the spending of the funds (March and September would work well due to the budget deadlines). Mona Scott explained that a custodial account may be used for Collaborative Initiative funds, to be spent over the course of two or three years, and with tracking of systems funds similar to the Equity funds.
For the March Advisory Board meeting, there will be an in-depth marketing discussion.
c) Round table sharing
(i) ICE incidents in libraries
Duimstra, Hartman, and Reichert Simpson gave a presentation at the Urban Libraries Council about their policies for ICE incidents. Different systems shared their experiences, and the ways they have been working with staff to check in.
(ii) Library Legislative Day February 25th planning
Wichitchu would like any systems’ one-page handouts created for Library Legislative Day. MELSA is also working on a one-page handout.
V. Reports
a) OverDrive (Libby) Patron Accounts
Specific numbers for duplicate users and non-MELSA patrons were distributed in the meeting packet. Duimstra requested more time to review the data and discuss it at next month’s meeting.
b) Executive Director report
The Executive Director report was distributed in the meeting packet.
Highlights included a few CRPLSA meeting updates, items covered in the MELSA January trustee meeting, and then a possible collaboration between MELSA and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District and the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, including human resources services and space sharing.
Duimstra adjourned the meeting at 12:01pm.