Library Committee Handbook

Executive Committee

AUL Annual Reports

Committee Charge and Membership

Innovation Fund

2017-2018 Meeting Information

Previous Documents 

Position Table
Position Request Form

Standing Policies

Executive Committee Meeting

November 1, 2004
291 UGL

Present: Paula Kaufman, Chair, Jane Block, Cindy Ingold,  Janis Johnston, Kathleen Kluegel, Bill Maher, Bill Mischo, Lynn Wiley,


1.    Approval of the October 19, 2004 minutes

       Minutes from the October 19, 2004 meeting approved as distributed.


2.    Question Time

       Kluegel asked if the Administrative Council would consider a different model for its procedures. She proposed that substantive discussions of policies and procedures be conducted at the Library Faculty meetings and a small Administrative Council composed of the 9 division coordinators serve as the body for the adoption and execution of these policies and procedures.  Kaufman will take this suggestion to the Administrative Council for their
consideration.  The Administrative Council will be discussing a new draft of their charge and mission this afternoon.  As part of this draft, the Administrative Council proposes that
it oversee and manage the Library’s Strategic Plan. Maher found that the document raised some concerns in the area of potential overlap with the Executive Committee’s purview. This will be discussed more fully in the future. AC will also be meeting with EC at a future date.


3.    Peer Review Committee

       A Peer Review Committee was appointed for a faculty member


4.    Review of Candidate Package Contents

       The packet of information for each candidate invited for an interview was reviewed in absentia, although the committee members had seen it at the last EC meeting. The following is a list of items suggested for inclusion:  CITES at a Glance, Library Annual Report, Compendium, Campus Visitor Guide, the Library’s Campaign Case Statement, Communication #9, the Library’s Statement on Research and Tenure, the Library’s Organization Chart, and the Development Office’s one-page description of the position’s unit in the Library.  In addition to the candidate’s packet, a Welcome packet for the successful candidate was proposed.  It would include, in addition to the Realtor Guide, pamphlets or guides to the Allerton, Krannert Center, the Krannert Art Museum, and Spurlock Museum, Public Libraries, and a guide to Campus Recreation, and the MTD Schedule. Also to be included in the Welcome packet: an annual report from their perspective unit and information on child care.



5.    Wording Regarding Photos in the Library

       This is an area where 1st Amendment rights have potential conflicts with personal rights to privacy, ‘freedom from disruption’ in the Library, cultural sensitivity, and religious considerations.  At the least, the committee feels permission should be obtained from the unit head or representative and those being photographed. While the Daily Illini and the local news stations follow good procedures in this area, tourists, wedding parties, and other folks taking pictures for a variety of reasons do not usually know that there may be a policy to follow.  Kaufman will be discussing these concerns with Marcia Rotunda for legal advice.


6.    FRC/PTA Appointment Process


       There are two areas of concern.  One of which is the procedures during the interview process and the other is the procedures during the appointment process when the successful candidate is being considered for a tenured appointment.  During the interview, it is essential that FRC & PTA present a consistent and meaningful picture of the Library’s faculty status, including but not limited to the promotion and tenure process.  The critical importance of research and publication for all faculty members, collegial governance, and the seriousness with which we take our role in Campus governance are all factors that must be included in that conversation. The experience of several members of the committee confirmed that this did not always take place. The inconsistencies in representing the committees suggest that a few things need to happen.  First of all, the FRC & PTA committees need to formalize and update their “scripts”.  Then EC will review these to assure that the consistent message is fully represented in these scripts.  It was proposed that the scripts be combined into a document that the candidate would receive in print at some point during the process. It is not clear that having this in the interview packet would be helpful.  So, perhaps as a handout for the session itself, where it could be explored with the candidate would be the best option.  If these important infrastructure developments are in place, then the Search Committee Chairs could feel confident that the candidates are getting the proper orientation to the Library’s faculty position and could let the committee representatives field the candidate’s questions by themselves.  This would allow the candidates to perhaps ask questions that are more revealing than if the chair was present.  It was suggested that having the search committee chair ask follow-up questions of the candidate as the interview went along would clear up any lingering concerns.

       There was another concern raised about the relative inexperience of some members of PTA and FRC in these areas. An orientation session for the two committee chairs was proposed.  It was left undecided about who will conduct these sessions and when.  PTA provides opportunities for new members to be observers at an interview session before they are the committee representative.  FRC does not yet have this as part of their procedures.  There is also a feeling that the feedback from the FRC & PTA representatives is less consistent than it could be.  This comes from the fact that 6 different people could have met with the typical 3 candidates, thus no comparison across candidates is possible.  No proposal was made to address this issue.

       In the area of FRC & PTA review of appointments for a tenured position, the recommendation is that the committees write a brief and timely but considered letter to Kaufman to accompany their votes.  This will assist her in writing the letter to the Campus that accompanies the package.

       Another question was raised about the possible application of peer pressure within the committees to swing a member’s vote. It was reaffirmed that the application of independent judgment of the members is why they are on the committees.

7.    Two new appointments


       John Wagstaff and Nuala Bennett Koetter have been approved by the Campus for appointment.  Wagstaff and Koetter have January 1 start dates. A ‘proto’ welcome packet will go to Nuala for her review and comments.  Wagstaff will receive the revised edition of the welcome packet.