Monday, March 8, 2004, 1:30-3:00
Present: Paula Kaufman (chair), Lisa German, Dick Griscom, Janis Johnston, Bill Maher, Bill Mischo, Lynne Rudasill, Beth Woodard
1. Approval of the minutes
Minutes were approved as submitted.
2. Question time
Do we need to approve the UGL Instructional Services job description?
Yes, we added the discussion of this job description to the agenda.
Why are we paying for electronic access to resources that we have in paper form? (related to the Elsevier agreement)
Answer: we purchase e access and print to a wide cross section of subjects. This question really should be asked of the AUL for Collections and not EC.
What are the duties of the intake officer? Do they serve faculty and staff or just faculty?
The Intake Officer is available for faculty, students and staff. They mostly cover sexual harassment and gender and race issues. (There is nothing on the Provost’s web page.) Beth will ask Cindy or Bruce for a more complete definition.
3. Spousal hire request
A department on campus asked us to take a look a person in terms of a spousal hire who has a background in librarianship. The committee decided to set up a screening committee to make a determination. It was also suggested that we look at position requests that weren’t filled and see if she would fit into any of them. A screening committee was selected.
4. Faculty rollback request
A faculty rollback request was received and accepted. Paula will send a letter to the Provost.
5. RBSC Head job description review
The committee suggested several changes. The changes will be made and the job description will be posted.
6. UGL Instructional Services Librarian
The committee made several suggestions that will be forwarded to the Chair of the search committee. Once the changes have been made the job description will be posted.
7. ½ time Commerce position-revisited
The Library Executive Committee was asked to revisit whether this should be an AP or faculty position. Paula consulted with David Swanson who said that ½ librarians not on tenure track should not be considered faculty.
8. 3Y evaluation procedure
Mixed messages are being given to the 3Y people regarding identifying external evaluators. Also the when FRC does their evaluation they need to let the Peer Review Committees know when someone is not progressing as they might. EC agreed that FRC should get back to the Peer Review Committee if they have a 2Y who having trouble.