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

18 December 2001
314A Illini Union
2:30-4:30 pm

After establishing that a quorum was present, Paula Kaufman called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.

1. The revised minutes of the November 20th meeting, as distributed on December 17th, were approved.

2. Guests:  Chancellor Nancy Cantor and Provost Richard Herman

a. Remarks
Nancy Cantor indicated that she came to listen, but wanted the librarians to know that she viewed the library as critical in the university.  The library represents cross over disciplines, merging of ideas across boundaries, indicative of societal changes, reaching out to the public, and adoption of technology.  One of the things that has impressed her are our access policies and our international policies through the Mortensen Center.  She sees a need for a rigorous campaign for private funds.  She would like to know what are our particular stresses here?

Paula Kaufman framed some of the stresses
1. Planning for the Oak Street Facility.  This is an ongoing process. From now on librarians will be involved in selecting materials and determining processes.
2. Migrating to two new systems.  Acquisitions and serials are currently migrating to III, and ILCSO has recently purchased Endeavor’s Voyager system to replace our current DRA catalog.  The current schedule has us going live by July.
3. Preservation efforts.  The Mellon Foundation proposal has just been approved with $300,000 going for equipment and $700,000 to be released when we raise twice the amount. Funds will be released in chunks rather than a lump sum after the fact.
4. Recruitment.  The library has experienced more than its share of retirements in the past few years and has conducted many successful searches, but there are still 15 searches underway and several have been unsuccessful.  Some of the closed searches include the Multicultural position in Undergrad and the South and West Asian position, which has been split into two positions.  In general our pools are small.  For example, in the assistant engineering position, there were only three applicants, and one candidate withdrew.  Nancy Cantor inquired whether degrees in library and information science were always required, and Paula Kaufman informed her that this was not always the case.  She noted that many more individuals attending library school are going into non-traditional roles instead of academic librarianship.

Lynne Rudasill commented that she knows that we are heading into tough times, but has really appreciated the positive speeches that both the Provost and the Chancellor gave when they both arrived on campus.
Nancy Cantor noted that it is very important in tough financial times to keep momentum going for new initiatives and ventures so that we are positioned to move forward after the recession is over.
Richard Herman commented that he doesn’t think this difficulty looks as bad as the budget in the early 90’s.  He noted that the Library is the laboratory for the humanities.  This has been confirmed by the campus and it will continue to be supported.
Bill Mischo indicated that in the past we have had great difficulty in maintaining collections in budget crunches and reminded everyone that no increase in money for libraries means a decrease in materials budgets.
Richard Herman noted that the administration is committed to providing price increases for this year.  They have promised $1 million a year for the library, with the storage facility being beyond this figure.  As a side note, he requested that the books chosen in honor of promotions not be moved to storage.  The budget situation is still in flux at the moment.
Barbara Jones assured the Provost and the Chancellor that there are 2 or 3 ongoing projects which will require reallocation of time, but will not cost much in terms of money, especially the “ public goods” project.
Nancy Cantor noted that this is a time ripe for her to help fund raise for these efforts.
Tim Cole noted that the Library needs assistance in understanding our faculty needs for new types of information, such as snapshots of web pages, which became so apparent during the election.  We are still struggling with whether to purchase electronic journals in addition to print titles, or to purchase only one format.
Richard Herman indicated that some of these issues came out in the Library Allocation Steering Committee.  The needs of faculty and new hires still need more communication.  Dean Jesse Delia has provided start up library funds for certain positions, such as philosophy.
Jo Kibbee questioned whether the Provost and the Chancellor have heard any backlash about the library. Have people on campus questioned whether the library is still needed?
What struck Nancy Cantor as she interviewed here and attracted her to Illinois was support for the Library on the Chancellor’s Search Committee. She hears backlash on lots of topics, but not yet on the Library. There seems to be a strong and wide base of support, with lots of deans willing to share donors if collaboratively used.  She thinks people know what a jewel this library is; alumni are very proud of it and are responsive to its needs.
Mary Mallory expressed concern about the depository library situation.  The Government Documents Library serves all disciplines and has received items through the depository system through the last 150 years.  The government is starting to charge for information that used to be free, so the Library needs people on campus to write Congress for funding.   Her second concern is that since September 11, the Government Printing Office took down the whole Department of Interior website and has asked the Library to destroy a CD-Rom.  It is very easy to make information disappear in an electronic era.
Nancy Cantor thought that the government relations people needed to have a summary of this issue.  Mary Mallory assured her that Paula is working with them.  Mary also noted that she has concerns that the FBI will visit us soon.
Paula Kaufman noted that five libraries in Arkansas have been visited to check to see if that particular CD-Rom was destroyed.
Jane Block emphasized that the book is not yet dead.  Long live the book!  She urged the university administration of the need to continue to support monographs, especially in the humanities, during budget crunches, not just serials continuations.
Francis Harris noted that a few years ago the campus responded to a great initiative on teaching undergraduates. The Library has not done as well in this area.  For example, she expressed the opinion that we need twice as many Undergraduate Librarians to carry out our teaching mission.
Richard Herman agreed that this initiative has changed the way we think on campus, and has changed our criteria for promotion and tenure.  The new tuition surcharge will be returned to the students in the form of new courses, capstone courses, ethnic studies, and the library will play a vigorous part.
Nancy Cantor stressed that the emphasis will be on extending undergraduate education beyond the four walls of the traditional classroom, with the public goods ventures intertwined with academic experience of the undergraduate.  We need to have a conversation about how the library can be a part of course experience for undergraduates as a laboratory.   AAHE has been exploring books as a form of “active learning” and “inquiry-based” learning, not just the transmission of knowledge, and how to build this into undergraduate experiences.
Maria Porta asked how the library will see the budget situation translated into dollars.
Nancy Cantor indicated that there have been obvious efforts to help the library, from assisting the regular operating budget to supporting a separate library campaign.  The question is how you maintain this in future hard times.
Richard Herman discussed the need to diversify the Library’s portfolio to increase the library’s budget, including state funds, the library campaign, as well as a tuition surcharge to students.
Priscilla Yu would like to see continuation of funding for new library programs.  Paula Kaufman noted that Priscilla is supporting a new PHD program without new funding and hopes that this is the last instance of this situation.
Both the Chancellor and the Provost encouraged email and written requests.
Lynne Rudasill asked what role the new research park will have with the library.  How much will the Library have to support them and what funds will be available from them?
Richard Herman said that the university will expect to recover some fees for service, but this is not yet worked out.
Tina Chrzastowski commented that we’ve seen “narrowing” of our ability to access and share our resources in an electronic environment.  Some licensing agreements won’t let us share with the research park, or with the rest of the state.
Neither the Chancellor or the Provost had answers yet.
Paula Kaufman noted that we have the same problem in reverse with the Health Sciences Library here on campus which is administratively part of UIC.  We can walk in and use their resources, but cannot deliver those items to our desktops.
Lynn Wiley expressed concern that we have not always been successful in fighting these restrictions to electronic products.  Libraries and the state and outside will cut their resources also and we will be seeing and increase in demand for those services.  Last year we received 70,000 requests for our materials, which stresses not only our budgets for labor and shipping, but also increases wear and tear on the collection.
Kathleen Kern noted that we also require staff to provide services.  Staffing funds are the hardest to maintain in difficult budget times.  Staff is the first place that is cut and the hardest to get special funds for.
Richard Herman indicated his awareness of the ARL statistics and where we rank in them, and that staffing relates to access, service, and inquiry-based learning.
Jo Kibbee commented that we also are struggling to serve the rest of the state and alumni and donors who also don’t have access because of licensing agreements.
Richard Herman stressed that the public relations effort is part of what the Chancellor is examining.
Sue Searing asked if there has been a reassessment of distance education on this campus.
Nancy Cantor noted that the LEEP program is a perfect example of an area where we should not pull back.  She is concerned with creating interactive experiences and is not a fan fully asynchronous programs.
Richard Herman noted that IBHE approved the University of Phoenix program with only one negative vote, also indicating that he thinks that socialization of education is an important aspect, and that we don’t want to forsake the value of place-centered education.  Leigh Estabrook is now chairing a group authoring a report considering directions for distance education, including continuing education.
Sue Searing commented that LEEP students place heavy demands on library resources and she worries about the socialization into the discipline if distance programs don’t draw heavily on the resources of the library.
Janis Johston likes these thoughts, noting that the library plays a strong supportive role in the intellectual life of the university, and that we’d like to play more of a leadership role.
Nancy Cantor indicated that she doesn’t know enough of the roles that librarians play now.  Librarians need to be included in the implementation team for cross-cultural planning and for the collaboration of the public goods groups, and in interaction for general education.  The law library should interact with undergraduates in a more significant way than it does now.
Richard Herman noted that the library as a community serves as a natural bridge between disciplines.

University Librarian’s Report (Paula Kaufman)

Paula announced that the Library has received Mellon money, and the capital campaign is a “go.”& amp; amp; #160; Lyn Jones will be heading up the planning.  As previously announced at the staff holiday party, a coffee service will open outside the Undergraduate Library sometime after the new year.
The Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors have directed the CIC to form a committee to investigate collaborative publishing efforts for university presses, especially in the area of electronic content.  Ken Gros Louis, former chancellor at Indiana, is working on a task force with a pilot project to investigate how presses can operate with more fiscal soundness.
Dr. Herman indicates that the website indicates committee membership, and that Paula Kaufman is on both the campus level and the university level committees.  See the president’s new website at
Paula Kaufman is meeting with a representative of DIA regarding parking for library staff during Bears’ games next fall.  They will talk again in May after negotiations have progressed further.  So far the weekends of August 10 and 24 are the only dates confirmed.


Executive Committee (Beth Sandore)

The Executive Committee has met three times since the last faculty meeting, on November 26, December 7 and December 10, to get caught up on discussion and action items.

Faculty Review Committee (Beth Woodard)

Beth Woodard announced that the newly-reconstituted FRC had its first meeting, and elected Pat Allen as the new chair.  Since Pat could not be in attendance at this meeting, Beth Woodard is presenting the FRC report.
FRC recommends that the faculty adopt this procedure for broader periodic review of tenured faculty in compliance with Communication #21:

Jo Kibbee questioned why someone would do this—request broader review.
Beth Woodard responded that someone who is considering going up for promotion might want to have some feedback on what kind of support they might have for promotion, or someone might just want more feedback than they are getting now.
Mary Stuart indicated that she was surprised to see this based on the comments at the last faculty meeting that we wanted to minimize the impact of Communication #21.
Bill Mischo noted that Communication #21 gives us a mandate to provide this option and this seems to be compatible with systems we already have in place.
Karen Schmidt asked if we would consider changing the name of the Visiting Committee to indicate its nature of peer review.
Mary Stuart suggested that only one person be the Visiting Committee for this purpose.
Leslie Troutman called the question and it passed with one abstention.
FRC further recommends that the Annual report format be changed to comply with Communication #21:

Mary Laskowski questioned whether the dossier format for librarianship would change.
Tim Cole noted that the librarianship part is under our control.
Leslie Troutman noted that we can look into making a better connection there.
Beth Sandore noted that as a reader of annual reports, the format wasn’t very meaningful as it was, and that looking at what we accomplished can be more useful to a peer review committee.
Tina Chrzastowski thought it was a really good thing when the dossier matched the annual report.
Bill Mischo thinks it will link them more closely and give a better framework of the librarianship statement for the dossier.
Lisa German feels that there is NOT a match between what she does and the strategic plan, and would like some help or suggestions for writing this portion.
Dick Griscom noted that the plans for the future part is the place where we describe faculty expectations.
Kathleen Kluegel stated that we need better integration of goal setting.  If we don’t buy into a full program of goal setting every day and evaluating accomplishments, it won’t matter what we write.
Tim Cole thinks that goals are appropriate, but need to be linked.  We need good instruction, guidance, and examples.
The first draft of the strategic plan had a lot of involvement, perhaps we need more input in the revisions.
Better feedback to faculty from the annual reports needs to be discussed at a later faculty meeting.
Annual reports tied to merit reviews are different for AULs, etc.  The spirit of communication #21 is to include the administrators in this same process.
Bart Clark noted that tying what you are doing to the strategic plan can be difficult.  He thinks FRC needs to be clear on how reports should be submitted (since that will impact the objectivity of the FRC members) and needs to return reasonably thorough evaluations back to the individual, which requires more than just a one-liner.
Beth Woodard announced that the Forum for untenured librarians on the annual report and dossier will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 1:30-3:30 in Grainger.

Preservation Update by Jennifer Hain and Tom Teper will be postponed until the next faculty meeting.


Cindy Kelly noted that the 3700 contract has been approved with a 1% increase for the next 3 years.  This includes clerks—chief and 1,2,3—as well as secretaries.  The 698 contract will open negotiations this year and normally follow what has happened with 3700.

Tina Chrzastowski noted that the Voyager Launch Briefing will be held on January 29th from 10 to noon in 126 GSLIS.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 pm.