April 10, 2006
Present: Paula Kaufman, Chair, Lynne Rudasill, Vice-Chair, Chris Prom Secretary, Jane Block, Tim Cole, Nancy O'Brien, Cindy Ingold, Kathleen Kluegel. Absent: Lynn Wiley
1. Minutes from April 5 were approved.
2. Question Time
AUL Evaluation: Some comments have been received. EC will discuss at the next meeting. A template for position requests has been drafted. A subcommittee of Lynne Rudasill, Cindy Ingold and Chris Prom will examine the reports and comments, then draft a set of 'strategic priorities' for future planning and for evaluation of the requests. The budget meeting with the Provost has been indefinitely postponed, pending outcome of negotiations in Springfield.
3. Personnel Issue
A confidential personnel matter was discussed and EC provided a recommendation to the University Librarian. She will speak with the affected parties.
4. Request for exemption from position moratorium
Beth Sandore requested an exemption from the position moratorium to fill a research programmer position to customize the Content Management System. EC raised some questions about the proposal, particularly why filling this position was a higher priority than E-Resource support. Beth will be invited to discuss the request at the April 24 meeting.
5. IRRC name change request
Moved, seconded, and carried to change the name of IRRC to "Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery."
6. Revised P&T documents
Nancy O'Brien provided an overview of the suggested changes. Most of them are clarifications of existing practice. The committee endorsed the changes and suggested they be taken to a faculty meeting. Several individuals and the Central Public Services Division have also requested that clarification be provided regarding "approved institutions," criteria for selecting external reviewers, and how to write a biographical statement. EC thought it would make sense to have a document providing criteria and including some samples of biographical statements. EC also discussed the question of appropriate rank for internal reviewers. Communication #9 stipulates that they must be of higher academic rank. Some committee members felt that the library should only use internal reviewers from among the Library Faculty, but others envisioned circumstances in which non-Library internal reviewers can provide a fair evaluation. The committee will work on these issues and submit the documents for discussion/approval at July Faculty Meeting.