Position Request Form
October 8, 2001
Present: Paula Kaufman (chair), Janis Johnston, Bill Maher, Beth Sandore, Sue Searing, Beth Woodard, Greg Youngen
There was a question about the by-laws. The By-laws Committee has met, and one of the issues is the definition of the faculty in the by-laws, which needs to be revised to satisfy a request from the Provost Office that a unit's definition of faculty match that in the statutes. It's unclear from the Provost's office exactly what language in our Bylaws needs revision, but it may be that we still base the definition on a clause of "rank of instructor or above." The Committee's immediate question however was whether the Bylaws still needed to include a clause for voting and committee rights for those with appointments of less than full-time. The consensus of the Executive Committee was that there were still people at less than 100 percent who should have certain faculty privileges so the Bylaws clause on that provision also has to have its language updated to deal with the problematic "instructor" terminology.
What is the status of the Chancellor's gender equity memorandum that Paula shared with the committee in August? It will be included on the list of future agenda items.
The committee discussed a draft list of improvements they would like the Systems Office to implement. The aim is to articulate things that Systems could be doing that would make work easier for faculty and staff. Paula will discuss this list with John Weible to determine which of the items Systems is already working on, their plans and priorities, and the obstacles and budget constraints they face. John will be invited to attend the next Executive Committee meeting.
The committee approved a new academic professional position that combined two half-time research programmer positions that were allocated to DIMTI and the Library Information Technology Committee. It was decided that it makes more sense to hire one full-time person, given the overlap in responsibilities and required skills. The goal in both cases is to provide centralized technology support for library projects. Both positions are permanent and neither are occupied right now. Search committee members were recommended.
The committee considered a proposal to have a single person represent both the Facutlty Review Committee and the Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee during interviews. This suggestion reflects the increased burden on FRC and PTA members due to the large number of searches this year. It would be necessary to make sure the one person adequately covered both aspects. The committee's opinions were mixed, but the majority favored continuing with two representatives.
FRC will meet on October 9 to discuss Communication 21 from the Office of the Provost, which addresses "Annual Faculty Review." It will also be on the agenda of the next Library faculty meeting. Three major issues need to be covered: annual evaluation and feedback, post-tenure review, and the grievance process. Paula is still waiting for guidelines about the full review option. She noted that a full review cannot be asked for every year. The By-Laws Committee is working on the grievance matter and will bring to the Executive Committee for discussion later; therefore, it will not be on the agenda of the October faculty meeting. There is a need to determine if existing Library processes are in compliance with the spirit of Communication 21, especially as regards the connection between annual evaluations and unit-level goals and expectations. The type of feedback provided to individuals also needs to be examined. EC concluded that an in-depth discussion with the full faculty might not be profitable right now, but distributing Communication 21 and answering basic questions will be useful. The next step will be to draft a document that interprets Communication 21 for the Library, and then take that to the faculty for discussion. The initial discussion at the October faculty meeting will help to shape that document. FRC will solicit written suggestions and recommendations, then present the document at the November Faculty Meeting.
When the streamlined Cataloging Policy Committee replaced the former Cataloging Policy Advisory Committee, EC and AC requested that a report evaluating the new committee structure be prepared after the first year. The report as submitted is more factual than evaluative, so Paula will ask the committee to provide a more evaluative report that assesses whether the communications on cataloging practices in the Library have improved, what the committee thinks is (or isn’t) working well under the new structure, and whether they achieved what they hoped to achieve. There may be merits in canvassing the people who were part of the former committee . Paula will also ask for input from the divisions via the Administrative Council.
There are obvious reasons for exit interviews, for example with people who are going to "greener pastures." Paula conducts such interviews regularly. Exit interviews with people who are moving from one departmental library to another would also be informative, but they are not routinely conducted. EC recommended that Paula interview people who are exiting Library units as well as exiting the Library. Further, it was suggested that a sampling of interviews with graduating Graduate Assistants might be useful, or perhaps a follow-up interview a year after they leave the Library. This could lead to guidelines of minimum expectations for graduate assistant positions.
Communication 21 is the major topic on which EC and other groups need to communicate with the faculty at large and seek input. See no. 6, above.