Library Committee Handbook

Administrative Council


 

Administrative Council
MINUTES
February 16, 2009
Present: Paula Kaufman, chair; Tina Chrzastowski; Tony Hynes; Beth Sandore; Sue Searing; Scott
Schwartz; Marek Sroka; Mary Stuart; Tom Teper; Scott Walter; David Ward; Lynn Wiley; Greg Youngen,
Kim Matherly, recording
1.)   
IM Collaborator Software - David Ward
David wanted the divisions to know that he and Kathleen Kern are willing to meet with them or units
or individuals to help them learn this chat software. They have already met with the Social
Sciences Division. Just let them know when you'd like them to attend a meeting.
2.)   
AULs plan how to go about answering the Provost's letter. Details of the planning process.
Input from AC and unit heads?-Tina Chrzastowski, Paula Kaufman and Scott Walter
Paula charged the AULs, with Scott as lead, to draft a response to the Provost. PSED has already
submitted recommendations to Paula. LSD is working with Beth Sandore to come up with a broad
approach. Two NSM teams, Government/Information group chaired by Janis Johnston and International
and Area Studies chaired by Barbara Ford, are working to come up with a plan by the first week of
March.
The Senate Committee on the Library, the Long-range Advisory Committee (LRAC), and the University
Librarian's Student Advisory Council (ULSAC) will be asked to react to a draft response of what
will eventually go to the Provost.
We hope to have a first draft by early March, receive all feedback from Library faculty and staff
by mid-March. Then the draft will go to the Senate, LRAC, and ULSAC for their input. We hope to
have a second draft to EC by the last half of March for final input.
Beth Sandore suggested that this be a growing experience for the Library. We need to think about
what we can do that helps with serve and what we can stop doing.
3.)   
Unit Annual Report TF - Scott

Walter reviewed the changes made to the Unit Annual Report instructions in 2009 and the AC suggestion that a TF might be appointed in order to consider more substantial changes to the instructions for 2010.

 

Walter described his process for reviewing and providing feedback on FY09 Unit Annual Reports, as well as his perception of the limitations of our current reporting program for ensuring that a full range of information comes from the units to the Administration aligned with University Library reporting requirements for the University and other constituents, e.g., limited value of existing quantitative measures.

 

Chrzastowski suggested that units will be challenged to provide the sort of data Walter requested given the limitations of current data collection and analysis tools. A lively discussion ensued.

 

AC chose not to charge a TF at this time, but asked Walter to draft a revised set of instructions that might be implemented for FY10 reporting (the consensus was that it is too late in the year to expect significant changes to reporting in FY09). Ward suggested that Library Assessment WG might be tapped to help develop these instructions and to address the question of support for data collection and reporting at the unit level.

 

4.)   
Unit Head/AUL Evaluation Document - Scott

Paula Kaufman provided a summary of EC discussion of this topic and of the need to provide for more routine review of administrative assignments, including Unit Heads, Directors, Assistant Deans, and Associate Deans. Administrative positions would be reviewed as part of any search, or as part of substantial changes in administrative responsibilities, and would be filled on 5-year, renewable terms. Current searches for Head, UGL, and Head, Preservation, will be made using the term appointment and regular review approach outlined in the documents.

 

Discussion ensued, in which questions were raised regarding, for example, the transfer of proposed administrative salary components to individuals who substitute for a unit head during a sabbatical leave.

 

Walter was charged with reviewing the documents and providing revisions to EC. AC members were asked to submit any comments to Walter by e-mail.

5.)   
Library Energy Conservation Working Group Report - Tom
The Library Energy Conservation WG completed the attached report and we will be implementing the
recommendations in the proposal in an effort to help the University contain costs.
The working group will be analyzing the use of public and staff equipment. At this time they don't
want us to turn off our computers at night. That is still they way updates are handled. IT is
looking at other options for upgrades, so we can turn off our computers at some time in the future.
We can turn off monitors, printers, and copiers.
6.)   
Recommendation for Incoming Library Materials - Tom
Some people are concerned that boxes, books, other packages, etc. could come into the Library with
allergens and toxins on them. There are masks and gloves available to anyone who wants them. Just
contact Rob Hildreth in supplies.
7.)   
Summer GA funding - Sue and Scott

BG plans to set aside funds for GH funding in summer 2010, not 2009 (units with FY09 GAs have access to those funds through the original terms of contract, i.e., through August 15, 2009).

 

Ward reported on CPS discussions of summer 2009 plans that would have an impact on plans to be made by units in other divisions, e.g., reducing service hours in Central Access Services and Central Reference Services during Summer II. It will be critical for Library units to align plans for potential reductions to hours during summer II across divisions. Division Coordinators were asked to begin summer 2009 planning discussions and to share initial ideas with AC by e-mail in advance of a discussion of a Library-wide approach to summer 2009 planning to be held at the March 16th meeting.

8.)   
Staff and public workstations, and staff printers: examining allocations - Beth
IT is looking at the footprint of public and staff work stations; specifically staff printers. They
tracked use from May - December 2008. They are analyzing the statistics they have gathered. The
plan is to take equipment from little used areas and put them in high-use areas. Any equipment used
less than 5% every hour during the work day is considered low-use. IT will be contacting unit heads
about moving equipment.