Library Committee Handbook

Executive Committee



Executive Committee Minutes January 25, 2010

 

Executive Committee

 

MINUTES

January 25, 2010

1:30-3:00pm

428 Library

 

Present: Paula Kaufman, Chair; Bill Mischo, Vice-chair; John Wagstaff, Secretary; Karen Hogenboom; JoAnn Jacoby; Michael Norman; Sarah Shreeves; David Ward; Greg Youngen; Visitor-Jennifer Teper; Kim Matherly, recording

 

 

1.                 2:30-Jennifer Teper - Head, Preservation Position

Jennifer answered questions and discussed the position with the committee.

 

2.                 Approve January 13, 2010 Minutes

Minutes were approved with changes.

 

3.                 Question Time

The committee discussed some of the position requests.

 

There will be an NSM overview on Tuesday, January 26. Team leaders will be giving summaries of the reports.

 

4.                 Budget Update

All searches are on hold, even the fee based requests. Paula has been asked to serve on a steering committee that will look at the structure of academic units. Another group will be appointed to look at University Administration and IT.

 

5.                 Reference Services NSM Team

The charge will be posted on the EC website for comment. EC will solicit volunteers for team members.

 

6.                 Faculty Meetings White papers

Bill and Sarah will work together to find themes that cut across more than one paper and important themes that may show up in only one. Common themes and recommendations from the white papers will be compiled into a separate report to accompany the white papers. These will be distributed to the faculty for the meeting on February 3.

 

7.                 Request to fill 3 yr visiting asst. professor appt.

This was approved as an AP position to be paid for out of endowment funds.

 

8.                 Annual Reports

EC began discussion on suggestions the group received concerning the timetable of FRC appointments and updates to the Annual Review process, as well as whether or not we are obligated to do an annual review given the budget situation.

 

We are mandated by Communication 21 to do annual reports and faculty are entitled to feedback. FRC has implemented a much less rigorous requirement; only two pages. This makes them less time consuming for the faculty writing them and for FRC to review.

 

It was suggested that we might want to post all annual reports so everyone can see them, to be able to keep up with what everyone is doing. EC will continue discussions on the Annual Review and FRC process at the next meeting.