Position Request Form
December 1, 2004
Present: Paula Kaufman (Chair), Bill Mischo (Vice-Chair), Lynne Rudasill (Secretary), Kathleen Kluegel, Cindy Ingold, Jane Block, William Maher, Janis Johnston
December 1, 2004
Guest: Paul Healey, Chair, Faculty Review Committee
1. Discussion of FRC Guidelines and Ratings for Annual Report
Paul Healey described the process used by the Faculty Review Committee in reviewing the annual reports of faculty members and discussed the changes being made in the form of the required report.
He agreed to the need for a change to the order of items in the part of the report dealing with Librarianship. Although these items are not in order of importance, they sometimes
appear to be arranged in that manner.
The scoring guidelines have not changed but there will be new language to give a better idea of the factors used in the scoring. He also agreed to the addition of a sentence at the
beginning of the Librarianship section stating that the report does not speak directly to the strategic goals, and that the faculty should refer to the mission statement of the
Library and Communication 21 to guide their writing.
The FRC does insist upon reports being written in at least 11point type, and the committee will not read or consider any information beyond the first three pages of the report on Librarianship. If the reporting faculty member wants to use bullets or an outline instead of full sentences, that is permissible.
Innovation is problematic as a criterion. Healey indicated that the FRC could look at any differences between the reports of unit heads and those who are not, to see if an apparent difference in the reporting and report scoring exists between the two groups.
After discussion, it was clearly articulated that this is not a ranking process, but a rating process. It was also mentioned that the changes in the reporting procedures still have to come before the faculty for discussion.
There was also brief discussion concerning moving conference presentations out of creative works. Communication 9 would still allow conference presentations to be listed as continuing research.
2. Minutes of the November 8 meeting were approved as corrected.
3. Question time.
The question of who decides the role and function of the Administrative Council was discussed. The AC was created by an earlier University Librarian. The focus of the group is on the day-to-day operation of the University Library. They are an advising body to the University Librarian. Currently the AC is discussing a new make-up for the committee and how they see the work of the committee progressing. Paula Kaufman will bring the results of the discussions back to the Executive Committee for input. There are intertwined issues of structure and implementation of the Strategic Plan.
4. Library Fee Discussion - The report at the Faculty meeting on November 17 was tabled. It was not necessarily supposed to be presented as a recommendation for the faculty to approve, but to provide a variety of options to the faculty.
5. Administrative Council reconfiguration - The various options being viewed by the Administrative Council were discussed.
6. The 0% appointment issue was discussed.
It appears that some members of the faculty do not understand what is implied by this type of appointment.
7. Kathleen Kluegel briefly discussed her review of the Library Policies and Procedures Database.
It was the opinion of the Executive Committee that two databases, one for the public and one for the staff would be appropriate.