Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting

Meetings 2015-2016

Meetings 2014-2015

Meetings 2013-2014

Meetings 2012-2013

Meetings 2011-2012

Meetings 2010-2011

Meetings 2009-2010

Meetings 2008-2009

Meetings 2007-2008

Meetings 2006-2007

Meetings 2005-2006

Meetings 2004-2005

Meetings 2003-2004

Meetings 2002-2003

Meetings 2001-2002

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

16 October 2001
286 Bevier
(refreshments at 2:30)

After determining that the requisite number of people to constitute a quorum were in attendance, Beth Sandore (vice-chair of the Executive Committee)who presided over the faculty meeting in the Paula Kaufman's absence, called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm.

1. Approval of the 21 September 2001 faculty meeting minutes (draft posted on LIBNEWS-L on 10/12/01; revisions posted on LIBNEWS-L on 10/16/01) was postponed until later in the meeting to make sure that everyone had a chance to review the printed copies that were distributed.

2. Introductions of New Faculty
Karen Schmidt introduced, with deepest joy, Tom Teper, Head of Preservation and Jennifer Hain, Head of Conservation.
Barbara Cressman, Interim Sousa Archvist for Band Research, was welcomed by Bill Maher.  Bill noted that many may recognize her from previously working in the Reference Library in several capacities.

3. Committee reports

       Executive Committee (Beth Sandore)

 The Executive Committee has met twice since the last faculty meeting on September 21, on September 24 and on October 8.

 The Executive Committee considered appointments to the following committees:  GSLIS Admissions Committee,  Library Information Technology Committee, and the campus Rape Awareness and Prevention Committee.

FRC/PTA Participation in Library Faculty Interviews.

The committee considered a proposal to have a single person represent both the Facutlty Review Committee and the Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee during interviews.  This suggestion reflects the increased burden on FRC and PTA members due to the large number of searches this year.  It would be necessary to make sure the one person adequately covered both aspects.  The committee's opinions were mixed, but the majority favored continuing with two representatives.

Search approvals and search committee recommendations:

Beth updated everyone on the South Asian and Middle Eastern Librarian search. The search closed unsuccessfully because it is difficult to find a single individual with good skills in both areas.   The search committee is considering requesting approval for two positions.

Two assistant reference librarian positions and the Assistant Biology Librarian position were approved and search committee members were recommended.  The Director of the Mortenson Center search was previously approved, but search committee members were recommended.  A new position in the University Archives has been funded provided by the president's office, so the committee approved the President of UI.  Approved.  Search committee members were recommended.  The committee approved a new academic professional position that combined two half-time research programmer positions that were allocated to DIMTI and the Library Information Technology Committee.  It was decided that it makes more sense to hire one fulltime person, given the overlap in responsibilities and required skills.  The goal in both cases is to provide centralized technology support for library projects.  Both positions are permanent and neither are occupied right now.  Search committee members were recommended

Exit Interviews

Paula Kaufman regularly conducts exit interviews with faculty and academic professionals who leave the institution for "greener pastures."  It has been suggested that exit interviews with people who are moving from one departmental library to another would also be informative, but they are not routinely conducted.  EC recommended that Paula interview people who are exiting Library units as well as exiting the Library.  Further, it was suggested that a sampling of interviews with graduating  Graduate Assistants might be useful, or perhaps a follow-up interview a year after they leave the Library.  This could lead to guidelines of minimum expectations for graduate assistant positions.

Planning for Discussion of Communication #21

FRC will meet on October 9 to discuss Communication 21 from the Office of the Provost, which addresses "Annual Faculty Review."  It will also be on the agenda of the next Library faculty meeting.  Three major issues need to be covered:  annual evaluation and feedback, post-tenure review, and the grievance process.  Paula is still waiting for guidelines about the full review option.  She noted that a full review cannot be asked for every year.  The By-Laws Committee is working on the grievance matter and will bring to the Executive Committee for discussion later; therefore, it will not be on the agenda of the October faculty meeting.  There is a need to determine if existing Library processes are in compliance with the spirit of Communication 21, especially as regards the connection between annual evaluations and unit-level goals and expectations.  The type of feedback provided to individuals also needs to be examined.  EC concluded that an in-depth discussion with the full faculty might not be profitable right now, but distributing Communication 21 and answering basic questions will be useful.  The next step will be to draft a document that interprets Communication 21 for the Library, and then take that to the faculty for discussion.  The initial discussion at the October faculty meeting will help to shape that document.  FRC will solicit written suggestions and recommendations, then present the document at the November Faculty Meeting.

Archival record keeping for the Executive Committee
 It was determined that a paper copy needs to be kept of the agenda, all handouts distributed via email and at meetings, and the minutes in a notebook kept in the main office.  An index will be developed to make looking up information easier.  Kim will be in charge of keeping the notebook and Paula will guide her in developing the index.

IUC representation on ILCSO Voyager Implementation Steering Committee
The EC affirmed the importance of having UIUC represented on the ILCSO committee that will oversee the implementation of Voyager and encouraged Paula to recruit someone.

Systems Needs

The committee discussed a draft list of improvements they would like the Systems Office to implement.  The aim is to articulate things that Systems could be doing that would make work easier for faculty and staff.  Paula will discuss this list with John Weible to determine which of the items Systems is already working on, their plans and priorities, and the obstacles and budget constraints they face.  John will be invited to attend the next Executive Committee meeting.

       Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (Leslie Troutman)

Leslie Troutman attended the Provost’s annual seminar on Promotion and Tenure on September 5.  Highlights included:
  • importance of the 3rd year review and the mentoring process.
  • Quality of review letters.  Ideally letters from people reviewing research and service need to come from first class people in the field at peer institutions.

In addition to Provost Herman, Charles Miller (Microbiology), Dennis Barron (English), and Mary Anne Smith (ACES) spoke.  Points of emphasis included:

  • The process should be started early, preferably at the interview.
  • Expectations should be spelled out and specific requirements detailed.
  • Candidates should keep good records.
  • Candidates should be mentored to let them know what’s important and how to balance their work.
  • The unit executive officer should be explicit in the 3Y review.
  • The candidate’s statement is especially important.  It should be written for a non-specialist and should convey enthusiasm and engagement.
  • Campus promotion and tenure committee members read dossiers differently.  Some read papers cover to cover, others read the executive officer's summary and the letters and then go on from there.
  • The campus committee takes note of international recognition.
  • Last year the campus committee did not turn down any cases, which indicates that the colleges did a good job of preparing documentation.

Karen Schmidt is serving on this year’s campus Promotion and Tenure Committee.  She noted that practices are different across campus.

Kathleen Kluegel noted that in past years there have been seminars for terrified candidates in late October.  Will there be any this year?  Bob Burger indicated that he will have a meeting on Thursday with the untenured faculty to discuss how to get involved in committees as part of the untenured librarians' professional development plan.

Tom Kilton questioned whether the new language in Communication #9 which talks about a balance of teaching and research is a change in focus.  Leslie Troutman indicated "no," that the educational contributions (librarianship, for us), is counting more, and that evaluations need to be substantive, but that research is no less a determining factor than in previous years.

Kathleen Kluegel asked if the current practice is to send out the candidate's research statement with the letter.  Leslie indicated that at present it is not.  There is some concern that the reviewer may then concentrate on reviewing the research statement rather than the research itself.  Leslie indicated that this needs further discussion.

FRC is reviewing the seven sets of promotion papers, and has finished five. PTA will review the first two cases starting on Monday.  FRC will finish their review by November 1, and PTA will finish before Thanksgiving, which gives Paula Kaufman three weeks to write letters for each candidate.

Jane Block noted that she received good guidance early on in writing papers and would like to commend Leslie for a great job.

Lynne Rudasill wanted to know if the Library is moving towards a more formal mentoring program as the Visiting Committees do not have that role.  Leslie indicated that PTA is not exploring that at this point.  Bob Burger indicated that some divisions are more proactive than others in that area.  For example,  the Area Studies Division takes an active interest in the research of its untenured members and holds regular discussions on research.  Kathleen Kluegel sees mentoring as a natural part of the Visiting Committee, but Frances Harris notes that this is done randomly rather than consistently.  Jo Kibbee also stressed the difficulty of being in both an evaluative and a mentoring role at the same time, and that it diminishes one's ability to be impartial.  From the discussion it was suggested that the Executive Committee add an agenda item to discuss a formal mentoring program at one of their committee meetings in the near future.

Sharon Clark thinks the division role is important.  Area Studies Division reads papers throughout the year and provides opportunities to talk about research.  Beth Sandore indicated that the issue of tenured folk helping untenured is important, especially at the division level.  Untenured faculty members should get to know their tenured colleagues, ask them to read papers, and become familiar to librarians outside of the University of Illinois.

Remote Access to Library Services and Resources Task Force  (Lynn Wiley, Jo Kibbee)

A grass roots task force formed in Central Public Services about one year ago to address issues that they had all been dealing with because of their central services.  The group included Jo Kibbee, reference, Lynn Wiley, IRRC, Betsy Kruger, Circulation, and Pat Cardenas, Academic Outreach.  Pat deals with needs of students enrolled off campus asking for books and journals.

This task force provides services for remote access by troubleshooting and making people aware of what is available.

Lynn reviewed issues regarding who has access to services may depend on whether or not they have an ID card, and I card or a NetID.  Many new users do not get a formal orientation session, and are not aware of services, or how to access materials.  They often need help with high speed access, opening a file with Adobe Acrobat or not enough memory on their computer.

"Take us with you" is a set of web pages that focuses on campus individuals who are temporarily off-campus such as faculty on sabbatical, researchers in the field, individuals away at conferences, and students in programs abroad for a semester.  Jo and Lynn had prepared a paper for presentation in September in Europe but were grounded due to the events on September 11. Kate Hinnant, a graduate assistant who worked with them this summer, put together a series of web pages that will help everybody's users.

The "Take Us With You" page is still under construction and will be announced and linked more prominently when it's been completed. They are working on a brochure for faculty on sabbatical.  They also met with the international studies people.  Most of them "had no idea" of the resources available.  For example, they did not know about electronic reserves.  The group also met with the area studies division.

"Take us with you" includes the following categories:

  • Resources for off campus
  • IO
  • Article databases
  • Full text
  • Services Available
  • Reference assistance
  • E-reserves
  • Using other libraries
  • FAQ
  • Technical issues
  • Useful campus links
  • Feedback form
"Off-campus Services" is still in development

ACES extension folk are an example of the types of people this set of pages would serve.
The group welcomes input and would welcome assistance if anyone would like to work with them to develop a central place for remote user assistance.

4. Other reports
The corrected minutes were approved by acclamation. There were no other reports brought forward.

5. New business

Discussion of Communication #21
Faculty Review Committee (Beth Woodard, reporting)
Executive Committee (Beth Sandore, leading discussion)
Please submit written comments of concern to Beth Woodard, FRC chair, by November 2, 2001 at

Beth Woodard reviewed the checklist prepared by FRC indicating where FRC saw compliance with Communication # 21.  See

The Executive Committee has asked Faculty Review Committee to draw up a specific plan to meet requirements of Communication #21.
In summary, FRC raised the following issues:
  • We are doing annual reviews in the Library, which many departments on campus are not.
  • One of the requirements is that the goals of the individuals contribute to the mission of the unit.  (Note: When referring to "unit," does that mean the Library as a unit or individual units or departmental libraries?)  FRC doesn’t believe that requirement is being met on a regular basis.
  • Required elements includes a statement of mission and expectations.  Our mission doesn’t tie back to expectations.  FRC does not see that we have an explicit statement of faculty expectations as regarding performance in the primary job.
  • Faculty documentation – written statements of accomplishments are provided.  Plans for future goals are not included.  Nor are how goals tie into the Library goals included.
  • Our annual documentation does not tie individual goals to unit goals.  FRC recommends that we do training on writing goals.  One of FRC’s concerns is having better information to write the goals and the means to evaluate if they are appropriate goals.  FRC doesn’t feel they are in a position to judge if the goals are appropriate or not for the individual.
  • Feedback on progress towards expectations is good for untenured faculty through the visiting committee reports, but not as good for tenured faculty or for individuals not on the tenure track.  Tenured faculty could receive feedback via annual written or oral statements.  Right now tenured faculty don’t receive any feedback beyond the salary increase. Our current process does not allow for periodic broader review, which Communication #21 indicates can be requested by the unit executive officer or the individual. FRC will have develop this procedure.
  • Record keeping – FRC keeps annual reports on file.  Written reports are not kept in personnel files.
  • Right now grievances appeals go to the Executive Committee.  Paula Kaufman is working with the Bylaws Committee and will deliver a draft at a faculty meeting in the future.
  • Timetable to address Communication #21 – none at this time.
  • Review of the faculty review system is not in place.  Paula Kaufman will handle this.
  • If you would like, you may submit questions, comments, or concerns to Beth Woodard by November 2.
Bart Clark pointed out that the campus' definition of "unit" is very clear to mean the Library, not the units within the Library.

Mary Stuart corrected Beth's review to point out that only the executive officer and the individual faculty member may request a more complete review, not a supervisor, since the "unit" refers only to the Library, not to units within the Library.

Dick Griscom asked what the time period for implementation is.  Beth Sandore indicated that we are gathering comments and feedback on how you think what we're doing now can or doesn't address the requirements by November 2.  EC has asked FRC to put together a proposal.
Kathleen Kluegel noted that we have lots of practice in goal-setting, and do not need further practice. Annual reports have included goals.  Feels we can move this from the "not done" to the "done" pile.
Bill Maher  doesn't see much on campus about documentation from other units.  We are in good shape.  Let's move it to the "done" pile.  We're not very far from the mark.  The key step is to look at what we do have in place, and encourages everyone not to beat this to death.  Bart Clark seconded this.  Mary Stuart concurs that it is a waste of time to belabor this.  We all have experience at goal setting.  Lynn Rudasill, from her experience on the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, feels that the library is far above others on campus.  Dick Griscom indicates that what we do probably does meet the requirements, but the checklist goes further.  Individual goals may not necessarily benefit the library as whole.  Should we be monitoring this?
Kathleen Kluegel again noted that the unit means the Library, not her unit.  Frances Harris noted that we are still solely based on self-reporting, honest wonderful and deeply introspective as we all are, that accountability is not built into this process.  Bill Mischo, on p. 2, statement of expectation of faculty members' contributions wonders if our strategic plan is adequate for this purpose and feels that we still have much to do here.  Sue Searing noted that she usually writes her goals, then forces them into strategic plan.  If you only do what is on strategic plan, core activities (such as operations) don't get done.  Beth Sandore noted that strategic plan is general enough to drive a truck through.
Sharon Clark noted that we get closer to what we actually do when we tie accomplishments to individual library units missions.
Sue Searing noted that she misses specific feedback in helping her to improve and move forward.
Beth Sandore feels that we need a Library across-the-board review of  individual "unit" goals since we differ in the level of emphasis.  We're not working on a level playing field.
Bart reiterated that "unit" is the Library, and is very precisely defined, and its relationship to university expectations.
Frances Harris noted that she thinks we comply with the letter of intent of these guidelines.
Bill Mischo thinks we should ask Bart about the mission statement
Bart indicated that he felt we are only missing the part of having the goals related to university and library goals, which is a minor modification.
Bill Mischo noted that the faculty members' expectations still missing.
Jane Block thinks we do comply with letter of the law, so shouldn't spend so much time on this that takes some creative juices.  We're capable of beating this to death and she doesn't want to do this.
Dick Griscom thinks that personal goals need to be related to unit goals.
Tom Kilton noted that creating individual goals can result in making up things.  The basic overall goals can't change drastically from year to year.
Bill Mischo noted that Dick's idea is a good one, but to get this done, FRC needs to revise the goal setting portion in annual report.  Then we need to take what Dick says about reviewing or relating them for appropriateness in relation to the Library's goals as a separate agenda.  Focus of this document is not that.
Jane Block noted that this is very important, but doesn't change the FRC process.

6. Announcements

Beth Sandore reported for John Andrick, library coordinator of the Campus Charitable Fund Drive, that we are now in the midpoint of the campaign. The Library has raised $8,762, which is 52% of our goal of $16,837.  Sue Searing pointed out the GSLIS pulled out of reporting with us because the Library was pulling down their statistics.  They are already at 113%.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40

Beth Woodard
Faculty Secretary