28 August 2000
Present: Paula Kaufman (chair), Margaret Chaplan, Tim Cole, Richard Griscom, Beth Sandore, Sue Searing, Mary Stuart, Leslie Troutman, Beth Woodard
Paula Kaufman welcomed the new members of the Executive Committee: Beth Sandore, Richard Griscom, Beth Woodard, and Sue Searing.
1. Elections of Vice-chair and Secretary
Tim Cole was unanimously elected Vice-chair of the Executive Committee.
Margaret Chaplan was elected Secretary of the Executive Committee by acclamation.
2. Visiting Committee Assignments
Several suggestions for Visiting Committee assignments were made. Paula will check with the people involved and inform FRC of the results. The Chair of FRC will keep a current list of Visiting Committee Assignments on the FRC website. EC will inform FRC regarding any changes.
Nina Davis' resignation from the Library created a vacancy on the Exhibits Committee. Paula Kaufman will contact the person suggested to fill the vacancy.
A motion was unanimously approved to change the Composition of the Exhibits Committee by deleting "a Faculty Member" in the second sentence, resulting in the following wording: "The Chair is appointed by the University Librarian with the advice of the Executive Committee." Paula will invite a member of the committee to be chair.
The CPC charge will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
The PAC Subcommittee of the Gateway Committee is now the PAC Team under ISCC. The Composition will be as follows: "Membership includes representatives from the User Education Committee, CPAC, Central Reference, and the Library Systems Office plus others appointed by the University Librarian on the advice of the Executive Committee, the Library Systems Director, and the Chair of the Team. Members serve two-year terms and may be reappointed. The Team Chair is appointed by the University Librarian."
4. FRC Draft Assessment Model
The FRC hopes to present to the Faculty later this fall a Draft Assessment Model that will incorporate changes in Library Faculty Assessment procedures. Beth Sandore explained the current draft and the FRC's thinking regarding faculty assessment.
Some EC members were in favor of waiting for the final approval of the Campus directive, currently under consideration by the Council of Deans, that will mandate an annual review with qualitative feedback for every faculty member.
Other EC members felt that the Library should move forward with its own plans to improve faculty evaluations and assessments in order to implement fairer and more accurate evaluations of the librarianship component of our job performance, comply with a directive from the Provost's Office, and facilitate the work of the FRC.
Concerns were raised because a portion of salary increases depends on the reviews, and EC members who served on FRC during the past year felt that the current process does not provide an adequate measure of performance in the area of librarianship and questions arose about the process and the results.
Another concern was raised about adding what might be considered an administrative review element to the Library Bylaws-required FRC "peer review" process. The suggestion was made that administrative reviews could be conducted separately and should not be something done by FRC simultaneously with Bylaws-mandated peer reviews.
The following points about the assessment process were made during the discussion by the EC:
1. Many faculty want feedback, but some feel that supervisory evaluation is not the way to get it.
2. Goal-setting ought to be an exercise to link individual performance to the Library's strategic plan.
3. Peer evaluation is very important, but no concrete suggestions for revising the model were forthcoming.
4. Supervisors need to get feedback from staff and from faculty who report to them.
5. There was concern expressed about the campus' imposition of faculty review criteria and about the need for the Library to respond to Comm. #21 by implementing the proposed changes.
6. It was suggested that in place of soliciting supervisory assessments we might do a better job of instructing faculty about how to write good annual reports. Conversely, it was pointed out that a major problem with the current process is that one's evaluation hinges on one's writing ability rather than on actual performance.
7. Some faculty want regular feedback on their performance in the three areas.
8. Some faculty find the current system of peer assessment to be "fatally flawed" and are eager to try something different.
9. FRC needs more objective input on performance in the area of Librarianship, but no consensus about what that might be.
After a discussion of the issues involved, Paula thanked EC for their comments.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.