Library Committee Handbook

Executive Committee

AUL Annual Reports

Committee Charge and Membership

Innovation Fund

2016-2017 Meeting Information

Previous Documents 

Position Table
Position Request Form

Standing Policies

Executive Committee Minutes

4 December 2000

Present: Paula Kaufman (chair), Margaret Chaplan, Tim Cole, Richard Griscom, Beth Sandore, Sue Searing, Mary Stuart, Leslie Troutman, Beth Woodard

I. Approval of the Past Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the November 6, 2000, meeting were approved as corrected. The minutes of the November 20, 2000, meeting were approved.

II. Question time

There were no questions.

III. Old Business

Beth Sandore reported on her conversation with the UIUC Webmaster regarding UIUC policy in the wording of signatures in e-mail messages. The official policy of UIUC, as contained in a formal statement from the Chancellor, is that no faculty or staff member should use UIUC equipment for other than UIUC business; however, the policy has not been strictly enforced. EC will not pursue any policy statements for the Library at this time.

IV. New Business

A. Discussion of the Library's FY02 Budget Request

EC agreed that the overall process for Library budget planning has gone well. The presentations of proposals at the joint AC/EC meeting were very informative. It would be better if more time could be allowed for the presentations (with a break or a split session). After hearing the unit priorities, it would be good to have an opportunity to discuss them in light of total Library needs. The follow-up AC and EC budget meetings are to provide advice to the budget group. A comparison of recommendations made by the two groups indicated that many issues were important to both.

Rather than discussing individual requests, EC addressed general themes in library needs.

1. It was noted that there are many requests for professional and para-professional positions for electronic resources. These needs could be met by a new centralized position, as requested by the LITC. It would be good to address the issues now in a creative centralized way and possibly become more decentralized later. The digital resources position requested by Acquisitions should be supported.

2. Staff requests should be divided into additional needs and requests to fill vacancies created by resignations or restoring positions that have been dropped. New resources and retaining personnel have to be balanced. There is a need to take a harder look at requests to maintain and restore rather than create new services.

3. Requests for additional staff to do user education included a variety of levels of staff. We need to take a look at how GAs are being used in the library and whether we need such a large number of them. GAs are doing a range of tasks, some more professional than others, and perhaps some of this work should be done by others. There is also a concern that there is some technical expertise that should stay "in house" with permanent staff. We should be looking at a generalized approach to providing basic services such as user ed with permanent staff rather than GAs.

4. There should be a pool of money for staff upgrades and reclassifications. The duties of many clerical positions are expanding into LTA and LTS tasks with high expectations for performance. It would do an incredible amount of good for morale to reclassify those positions and increase pay accordingly.

5. When considering new positions and classifications, we need to define what we consider basic services. We should be careful about what is considered basic regarding technology especially to the users. It is changing, and we need to define how needs are changing. We have a multifaceted library, and we need to think about maintaining the ability to respond to new and changing needs.

6. A number of requests address needs related to cataloging, especially for Western European languages. Outsourcing original cataloging of foreign language material shirks our responsibility to contribute to national cataloging databases. We need to address the backlog and how we will deal with it. We need to either make things available or rethink what we are. Discussions regarding what level of access to what kind of materials would be helpful in determining what level of personnel is required.

7. We need to determine how to handle electronic reserves. Standards are needed and a standardized interface should be coordinated. There was a task force studying it which should have recommendations for standards. Intellectual property issues should be centrally controlled.

8. CD-ROMS have been purchased that cannot be made available to users outside the individual unit for technical reasons. Systems should be given the relatively modest support it needs to make them available

9. We need to address the costs of recruiting beyond salary. We need a budget with some flexibility for needs such as research money, spousal hires, and GA support.

10. There was a discussion regarding how the equipment and facilities requests would be prioritized. Some requests were for relatively small sums that could have been purchased from "petty cash"; while others were so huge they were not costed at all. At some point we may also want to establish guidelines for the size of equipment requests. As part of this category, there are some one-time expenditures that the Library must plan for, including the move to a remote storage facility and the new online system. Opening the Bookstacks would be another one-time expenditure if it is approved.

The Mortenson Center's new location in Undergrad seems inappropriate; it should be nearer the LIS Library since all participants are librarians. It was hoped that this is a temporary placement with space and equipment that could be converted for future Undergrad needs.

It was suggested that the new position of User Ed Coordinator, even though it is part of the Strategic Plan, and opening the Bookstacks to undergradutes should be discussed at a Faculty meeting.

General recommendations for the Budget Planning Group:

1. Proper staffing is important, but new initiatives/innovations should also be supported, and some percentage of the request money should be targeted for new programs.

2. Since this is the first time this budget process has been used, divisions approached the process differently. Some brought to the table every need, and some brought only their first or most important needs. EC asks the Budget Planning Group to consider the differences in interpretation and to treat the divisions even-handedly.

3. Good judgement is very important when considering large divisions vs. small divisions and equitable division of the monies available. Size isn't always the best criterion; user base or services for the greater good should also be considered.

There are other efforts underway for Library support. (1) Dave Stewart of ILCSO is looking for temporary dollars for implementation of the new online system. (2) $250,000 is available for biotech initiatives and twelve proposals have been submitted on campus applying for it. (3) Paula and Tina Chrzastowski presented a Faculty Excellence proposal for the creation of a new biotech librarian position with accompanying support. We should know soon if the Library proposal is accepted.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.