May 19, 2008
Present: Scott Walter, cchair, Pat Allen (for Greg Youngen), Tina Chrzastowski, Tony Hynes, Mary Laskowski (for Lynn Wiley), Bill Maher, Becky Smith (for Sue Searing), Mary Stuart, David Ward, Karen Wei; Recording: Kim Matherly
1. Oversees Collection Development Trip Policy - discussion and comments recorded for Tom (Scott)
Several librarians, especially from Area Studies, make overseas trips. In many cases the center or department(s) affiliated with the individual library help fund the trips and cost of materials.
The committee agreed it was a good idea to have a written policy. In the sentence, ‘Prior to travel, approved trips will require the completion of a contract between the University Library and sponsoring department or program,’ the committee felt that contract should be replaced with ‘ documented understanding.’ There should also be a sentence added that states, ‘Any costs associated with travel conducted without pre-approval may not be eligible for reimbursement.’
AC approved the documents with those changes.
2. Unit Annual Report (UAR) Discussion - Revisions and Questions (Scott)
Based on feedback Scott received at the forum on GA evaluations, Scott wanted input as to whether the UAR should be changed. The committee determined that there wasn’t enough time to make any major changes to the document this year, but a task force should be appointed to make changes for next year.
One change that will be added to the UAR this year is the summary report of GA evaluations, which may take more than the previous requested three pages.
Scott will put out a call for anyone who would like to be a member of the task force, which will consist of at least one person from AC and one person from the AUL for Services Advisory Committee. January will be the target date to have the document ready for next year.
3. Library Tiered Hours Proposal Discussion (Scott)
Scott recognized the feedback on the tiered hours proposal received from AC members. Questions were raised regarding the purpose behind the proposal and the timeline for implementation. AC members noted that there are different levels of permanent staffing and student support across units proposed to be part of the same tier, and asked if permanent staff might be re-assigned in order to provide greater consistency across units within a single tier. AC members noted that some units have developed their current service schedule based on use data, and asked how/if such data should be used in a Library-wide approach to service hours. Questions were raised about Library expectations in terms of staffing that might be part of a broader approach to setting service hours, e.g., how many staff should be available at opening or closing (e.g., for security purposes), during what hours should users be able to expect to speak with a member of the permanent staff, how do units balance the need to provide public service hours with other responsibilities that take them away from their units?
Scott reviewed the Budget Group discussions out of which the proposal came, e.g., the identification of core service units (Tiers 1 and 2) to which attention is being paid during the current student wage allocation process, as well as discussions of what units may require additional attention as opportunities arise to allocate additional resources. AC members asked if they might discuss this proposal within the divisions as a long-term plan, rather than as a plan that we are looking to implement ASAP.
AC members noted that any plan asking permanent staff to stagger their work schedules in order to ensure greater access to permanent staff in public service units during evenings/weekends should also include attention to permanent staff in non-public service units, e.g., technical services, so that staff whose responsibilities include those areas will be able to consult with colleagues during evening/weekend schedules.
A question was raised about how the survey libraries might play into this plan; Scott noted that discussions about the survey libraries are still too preliminary to address this, but noted that it would be part of future discussions.
Scott will take the feedback to the Budget Group for further consideration.