I think what might be missing from this conversation for Marie is that these monthly meetings were initiated by the CFB network, not the LOC. When the pandemic necessitated the shutdown, we wanted stay connected and began holding these meetings—some with a loose agenda, others more specific. So our wish to move forward with the meeting tomorrow, even in Guy’s absence, is in keeping with what we established 10 months ago.
Andrea D. Lewis
Senior Program Officer
Maryland Center for the Book
108 W. Centre Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
[log in to unmask]
Currently Reading: You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why it Matters by Kate Murphy
[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:3fc3ddb6-8acc-494b-8b35-0a663c6f3e28">
Thank you, Rocco.
And apologies to all. I think the regular meeting can certainly go forward! I meant the specific discussion about the LOC agreement (as the meeting is now described), in which Guy committed to answering your questions about the document and addressing your concerns and recommendations. If we can punt that specific aspect of the discussion to January, that would be helpful, given that no one from the Library can be part of the meeting tomorrow.
By all means, please go ahead with the general meeting. Guy will address any of your questions in a January session. I’m sorry if I have caused any confusion.
From: Center for the Book state centers communication <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Rocco Staino
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dec. 16 meeting CANCELLATION
I am confused by this email. Considering that we have this meeting scheduled as part of our regular monthly before the discussion arose about the agreement. I suggest that we go forward with the meeting with the following agenda;
Agenda for December 16th States Center for the Book monthly meeting:
Please add any other topics because I quickly did this off the top of my head.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:24 PM Arana, Marie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear CFB friends,
I’m afraid that because of a personal emergency on Guy’s part, we are going to have to postpone this important meeting. And, because the holiday week is soon upon us, we will have to reconvene in January.
Can we suspend this Zoom, Sharon, and choose a new date after January 2?
Many thanks to all. Apologies. And wishing everyone a very happy and safe holiday season.
My very best,
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540
[log in to unmask]" alt="http://staff.loc.gov/sites/librarylink/files/2018/08/Email-LOC-logo.jpg">
Is there an agenda?
California Center for the Book
California Library Association
Facebook & Instagram: @CaliforniaCenterfortheBook
On Dec 15, 2020, at 7:20 AM, Rocco Staino <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I am assuming that tomorrow's meeting is still a go. Is that correct?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 6:07 PM Sharon Shaloo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
3 to 5 p.m. Eastern
Meeting ID: 811 0139 6786
One tap mobile
+13126266799,,81101396786# US (Chicago)
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM Gleisner, Tim (MDE) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
What time are we meeting on Wednesday the 16th and was there an invite?
I am hoping we can iron out your objections and needs for the agreement, or at least most of them, in our Dec. 16 meeting.
Could someone please take the lead and set up a Google doc where you can list your comments? I suggest two categories:
- What you want changed in the agreement
- What you want from the Library, what you want added
This agreement is part of an overall effort at the Library to regularize/formalize all our relationships. I have been asked to do this as part of that process; it is not exclusive to the affiliate centers.
Thanks and I look forward to our Thursday meeting.
Enjoy your weekend,
Head, Center for the Book
Center for Learning, Literacy and Engagement
Library of Congress