Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

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

19 February 2002
Grainger Commons

Paula Kaufman, chair, called the meeting to order at 3:05pm and began the meeting with the University Librarian’s report, while waiting for enough faculty to make a quorum to approve the minutes.

1. University Librarian’s Report (Paula Kaufman)
 At this time there are no budget updates.  New resources will hopefully be generated by the Capital Campaign.  The campus has appointed an internal steering committee, which will be comprised of development officers of large units on campus and UIF personnel.

 Bart Clark mentioned the moritorium to fill permanent positions includes librarians, academic professionals, and staff positions.  Currently there is no way to fill positions permanently, but possible extra help can be used for staff positions.  Any search already initiated can be continued.

 Lisa German asked how long the moratorium would last. Paula responded that this is unknown at this time.

 Karen Wei was under the impression that the Slavic head position had been frozen.  But Paula said that information was incorrect and the Slavic head search would continue.

2. Introductions of New Librarians
 The new Japanese Librarian will begin on Wednesday, February 27.

At 3:15 pm, it was determined that a quorum did exist.

3.  Approval of 18 December 2001 minutes.
The minutes from the December 18, 2001 meeting were approved with changes.

4. Committee Reports
 Executive Committee (Beth Sandore)
 The Executive Committee met on January 28 and February 11.  Several P&T matters were resolved.  They included selecting editors, paper preparers and peer review committees for promotion candidates.  There will be at least seven sets of papers for the next P&T round, possibly more.

 Ryoko Toyama, Director of New Brunswick Libraries at Rutgers, will be visiting on February 25.  She will be discussing the plan that Rutgers has developed for filling vacant faculty positions and the guiding principles they use.  Ms. Toyama will meet with EC and AC and tour some of the libraries.

 EC also discussed the technical service division's proposal concerning division representation on FRC during P&T evaluations.

 The Executive Committee also discussed the cross-campus initiatives and discussed committee composition and appointment to more fully explore options presented at the last faculty meeting.

 EC was also brought up to date on the impending implementation of the Voyager System.

 ISCC (Peggy Steele)
a. Voyager environment changes from DRA
? The Voyager System will be comprised of 44 databases; one database for every library in the consortium.  The 44 databases will be housed on a SUN server managed for ILCSO by AITS.  Each ILCSO library has the opportunity to develop a web interface.
? Universal Catalog will allow all users of ILCSO to have access to all holdings.  Universal Borrowing will continue resource sharing and request promotions like we have done in the past.
? UIC will be part of the new system and participate in the Universal Catalog (UC) and Universal Borrowing (UB).

b. Timetable for Voyager Implementation
? Phase 1 is complete, which consists of UIC and ITT.
? Phase 2 is in process now.  It includes everyone else.  Implementation and cutover to Voyager is planned for Summer 2002.  Because the initial contract called for 3 databases, and it has been decided to go with 44, the contract had to be negotiated, but both Endeavor and ILCSO are committed to migration completion in this time frame

 c.  ISCC Voyager Teams
? Data conversion team is headed by John Weible.  They are working on the data mapping table that will form the core of the way data is converted to the new system.  There is only a short time to review the table, which is on the G: drive.  Please let the team know by Thursday, February 21 by 5 p.m., if you see anything that needs to be changed.
? Cataloging Team is headed by Barb Henigman.  They are focusing on data conversion and data cleanup projects.
? Acquisitions Team is headed by Lisa German.  Their focus has been on migration of vendor and order data from III to Voyager.  Acquisitions Department will begin fully using Voyager July 1, 2003 for FY04, but hope to begin using serials check-in in January 2003.
? Circulation/Reserve/Resource Sharing Team is headed by Betsy Kruger.  They are migrating charged items, recall items, fines & fees and patron records.  A recommendation of standardized loan periods is being reviewed by the Administrative Council now.  They are revising circulation notices and reviewing reserve functionality in Voyager.
? Public Interface Team is headed by Leslie Troutman.  They have been visiting other libraries’ Voyager websites.
? Serials team is headed by Tina Chrzastowski.  They are surveying department libraries about equipment and personnel transitions for development of library wide data input.
? Training Team is headed by Beth Woodard.  They have been researching other Voyager libraries for development of training materials. All members of ISCC have been to a Voyager four day training session.  All members of Voyager teams have gone or will go to modular training.  They plan to develop overview training for people who don’t work directly with a specific module and determine how to offer training on an ongoing basis as new employees join the Library.

 d.  Communication
 The Committee will keep everyone in the library up to date on what’s going on.  The first Voyager Launch Briefing one took place on January 30, 2002 to a packed house.  Planning for the second Briefing is underway.  The Navigator will continue to be issued on a bimonthly basis.  Peggy will come to faculty meetings with updates.  Announcements and requests will be posted on LIB-News as they come up.

e. Next steps.
Different crews are involved in the functionality of each of their areas.  They are working to refine existing workflows, system profiling or customization of profiles, and security authorization.  The assistance of the faculty and staff is needed to help respond to proposed items.  Often these requests for assistance will have short timeframes and your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

(Margaret Chaplan)  What do you  mean by summer implementation?
Peggy responded that ILCSO and Endeavor are not yet willing to be specific about the exact time frame.

5. Other Reports
 Campus-wide initiatives proposal (Beth Sandore)
 In late fall, the Chancellor proposed a cross-campus initiative which was discussed at a library faculty meeting.  The Executive Committee further discussed ideas, and made a recommendation to create a committee to develop a proposal.  The committee consisted of Beth Sandore, Bill Maher, Barbara Jones, Caroline Szylowicz, Carole Palmer (GSLIS), and Mara Wade (Germanic languages).  The group received some guidelines from EC discussion.  There are already significant primary resource materials in all the collections.  There is strong evidence of high use of these materials on campus and a strong interest in the use of the collections, as evidenced by faculty who request that items be digitized.  In the DLF report, it was suggested that humanities scholars have needs that are not being met.  The group proposed an initiative to provide good support for use of research materials through fellowships supporting interdisciplinary research in the use of primary sources materials, and involvement of undergraduates.  One component would involve the examination of scholar's use of these collections.

 January 28 – EC reviewed, discussed, and suggested recommendations for revisions
 February 15 – the proposal went to the Provost and Chancellor
 February 27 – Chancellor’s/Provost’s daylong retreat to discuss initiatives.  Paula requested that a core group of librarians be involved so that the "library" can be at each of the tables of discussion.

 The group asked some others in the Library to share the proposal with one or more colleagues among the teaching faculty of their units for informal feedback.  There are some teaching faculty with a strong interest in this initiative.

 Bart Clark voiced some concerns about clarity of support for some of the collections.  He noted that several of the collections listed are not part of the Library, and wondered if this will go through the Public Goods Group and if the head of the Anthropology Department had been contacted as well as Applied Life Studies.  Paula Kaufman reassured him that she had shared this with deans of FAA and LAS.
 Beth Woodard asked about the process after this retreat.  The Ed Tech Board also had concerns about how educational technology issues could be incorporated in the next step and it makes sense for the Library to follow the same pattern of review that the technology people do.
 Paula Kaufman stated that the process is ambiguous at best.
 Beth Sandore noted that this proposal is less than a "white paper," and would need the access and preservation/conservation aspects more fleshed out.

 Security (Wendy Shelburne)
 Tony Ortiz did another presentation on Security in the Library.  He gave information on self-defense and what training is available in the community.  There is a Rape Aggression Defense course that lasts 12 hours over  a period of four weeks and costs $12.  Wendy has participated in this course and it is very good.  This program is for women only but there is a co-ed defense program also that is four hours long.  You can obtain additional information from Wendy, Tony Ortiz or the Department of Public Safety.

6. New Business
 Library Bylaws revision (Bill Maher)
 Committee included Bill Maher, Frances Harris, and Gene Rinkel.  Paul Healey joined them this fall.   The process for amending is to send a notice 10 days in advance that bylaws will be discussed at the faculty meeting.  The bylaws will be discussed today.  If there is a desire to change anything there will be a motion and if the motion is seconded the change will voted on at the next faculty meeting or someone can move to have a mail ballot.

 The changes were consolidated into three separate motions.  The first motion is to change the definition of faculty in Article II, Section 1to conform with the University statutes in article 3, section 1.b.1.  The second motion will be to clean up and remove references to a Deputy University Librarian, a position which no longer exists.  The third motion will be to fulfill the request from the Provost’s office to form a grievance committee.

 1st motion – took out references to instructors, clarified percent time.
 Voting extension of privileges is limited to members of the faculty as defined by Article II, Section 1, Paragraph A above.
 Al Kagan asked for a point of clarification of what impact these changes have, and was reassured that no one who has a vote now is being denied a vote with the change in language.  Bill Maher noted that the vote to extend privileges is only done by the individuals mentioned in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph A.
 (Bart Clark) Would like the status of emeritus faculty clarified.  Emeritus faculty have an appointment so they are allowed to vote.
 Kathleen Kluegel moved to include this change on the ballot.
 Sue Searing seconded the motion.  All were in favor.

 2nd motion – eliminate references to deputy university librarian.  In some places the responsibilities were assigned to the University Librarian.
 Bob Burger  noted that in  Motion 2.8 (line 377 of the copy distributed in advance), the chairperson of EIRC is noted as being a voting member.  They are no longer a voting member, so Bob moved to reflect this change in the current motion.
 Bart Clark seconded the motion.  All were in favor.
 Beth Sandore – on line 374 it names the Acquisitions Team Leader which should be changed to Head of Acquisitions.
 Lisa German seconded motion.  All were in favor.
 Beth Sandore moved to place this second motion on the ballot.  Lynn Wiley seconded it. The second motion was approved to be placed on ballot.

 3rd motion – Grievance procedures   The grievance committee would be a new committee, elected by the faculty.
 Kathleen Kluegel – language suggests those elected not be members of groups that make initial decision.  Does this need to be explicitly stated?  Bob Burger noted that line 504 addresses that issue.
 Margaret Chaplan wanted clarification on the reporting lines of the committee.  One statement says that the committee advises the University Librarian of its recommendation.  She would like a line added that says that a report is made to the faculty at the end of the year.  She also questioned the procedure of a grievance being given to any committee member, versus the chair.  She questioned the 30 days; is it 30 regular days or 30 working days?  She also feels the grievance should be made in writing and not allowed to be made verbally.

 Margaret Chaplan moved that the grievance committee report to the faculty on an annual basis with recommendations for procedures.
 Beth Sandore seconded the motion with the friendly amendment  that it be a summary report.

 Bill Maher felt the 30 days as calendar days was clear.

 Frances Harris felt that a report by the committee to the faculty would be a violation of confidentiality.  Bart Clark also felt this way.  Beth Sandore felt that a summary could be submitted without naming names and would still keep the confidentiality of the people involved.  Bart Clark felt because there would be so few grievances even a summary would be too revealing and might keep some people from making a grievance.  Kathleen Kluegel supported Bart's remarks.

 The motion failed on a voice vote.

 The motion was made by Margaret Chaplan that a grievance must be submitted in writing to the chair.  The motion was seconded by Beth Sandore.  Beth Sandore stated that this would closely follow what the faculty advisory committee does.
 Kathleen Kluegel felt there were many reasons to leave this open.
 Paul Healey stated that according to due process you must be careful about any barriers to initiating a grievance.
 Margaret Chaplan felt it was important that the facts are correct and word of mouth is not always accurate.

 Al Kagan asked for clarification of “formal” in relationship to the grievance process.  Bill asked to defer Al’s question until after a vote on Margaret’s motion.
 The motion that all grievances must be in writing was opposed 12-10.  The motion that all grievances must be submitted to the chair was opposed.

 Al Kagan’s request was brought up again.  He wanted to know if “formal” meant in writing and therefore “informal” was by word of mouth.  Therefore any grievance would be in writing.

 Bob Burger had to leave and asked Janice Pilch to state for him that regarding written grievances, a line should be added “including any attempt at informal resolution.”  This motion was presented by Janice and seconded by Bart Clark.  The vote was to add the statement.

 Lynn Wiley moved to strike “filing formal” from the wording.  Lynne Rudasill seconded the motion.
 There was discussion about what the formal procedure was.  It was then determined that there was no longer a quorum of the faculty, and Paula Kaufman adjourned the remaining faculty at 4:55pm.