May 20, 2013
Present: Paula Kaufman, chair; Chris Prom, vice-chair; Sarah Shreeves, secretary; Mary Laskowski; Nancy O’Brien, Carissa Phillips, Lynne Rudasill, John Wagstaff, David Ward; Visitors-Harriett Green, Beth Sandore Namachchivaya, Sue Searing; Recording Kim Matherly
EC member terms have gotten off cycle. In the past we nominated and voted for 4 new members each year, with two year terms. At some point, we started nominating and voting for 3 members one year and five the next. In order to get back to the original voting of 4 members each year, which is in the Bylaws, EC decided to resolve it in next year’s election: When 5 seats next become open on EC, the person with the 5th-highest number of votes will have a 1-year term for 2014-2015.
In past Beth used an informal review panel to make these kinds of decisions. GSLIS has put in multiple proposals and we have put in multiple proposals. If there are more than 5, Beth convenes a review panel, if there are less than 5 and they aren’t competing, she tells them to go ahead.
How do we allocate our institutional resources to support them? How do you identify and help support institutionally a group or individual who wants to move forward and how do we determine and encourage someone to go forward with an idea? We may need something more than review panels to vet ideas. Perhaps we could keep a list of people willing to review ideas at the development stage.
How do we sort out multiple proposals for same program and how do we ensure the proposal includes all of the requests for and resources to make sure it can get done? What if we had a required checklist or a signature form that requires that all departments involved sign the form? Something similar to the cost-sharing agreement people sign.
Beth, along with Kathie Veach, will develop a checklist for every PI to sign. If the grant is using resources from another unit, the head of that unit will also have to sign the form. Beth will send a draft back to EC to look at.
The Executive Committee discussed and clarified its position regarding the final report of the Main Library Humanities Hub Planning Team.
The team submitted its final report in December 2012. The Executive Committee asked the team to re-visit several issues, and the team submitted a revised report in April 2013. The report can be found at http://www.library.illinois.edu/nsm/humanities/index.html. The Executive Committee received the revised report, discharged the team with thanks, and called via LIBNEWS for feedback on the revised report.
The Executive Committee supports the development of the second floor of Main Library as a humanities “hub” and endorses the re-purposing of room 220 (currently the home of CAM) as a location for humanities services and materials. Although it will be 2-3 years before room 220 becomes available, the Executive Committee has endorsed two of the report’s short-term (1-2 year) recommendations.
The Executive Committee believes that these preparatory steps will position the Library to explore more extensive integration of humanities services and collections when second-floor space, particularly 220, becomes available.
Approved as amended, with a motion by Nancy O’Brien, seconded by Mary Laskowski.
Paula reported that the search for a History Librarian and Interim Head of HPNL was not successful. EC will revisit possible options.
There was a discussion regarding making all past supplemental documents on the EC website password protected. It was determined that this would take a lot of time and there are not enough resources in IT at this time.
A personnel issue was discussed.
The Biss open access bill passed both the house and senate (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1900&GAID=12&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=85&GA=98). If signed by the governor, the Board of Trustees will appoint a committee that will recommend if and how the University should provide open access to research produced by faculty. These recommendations could be a mandate for faculty. We applaud and support open access but have to be careful about how this is recommended and implemented.
A committee was suggested and Paula will ask them to serve.
Paula will send out the call for people to request funds for speakers.
The charge was accepted with a few suggestions.
There were lots of wonderful suggestions through the brainstorming sessions.
Beth Woodard had suggested different groups of people to look at the different areas. EC agreed this was a good idea. Each group should come up with a one paragraph synthesis and three-four recommendations to act on.
Paula will look at Economic Development section and send a draft back to EC.
Committee Assignments were suggested and Paula will ask individuals to serve.