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

19 March 2002
314A Illini Union

Paula Kaufman, chair, called the meeting to order at 3:06pm and began the meeting with the Approval of the minutes, as there was enough faculty to make a quorum.

1. Approval of the 19 February 2002 faculty meeting minutes.
The minutes of the last faculty meeting were approved as distributed on March 15 with the correction of replacing Paul Callister's name with Paul Healey’s.  Lynne Rudasill moved to accept the minutes and Nancy O'Brien seconded the motion.  The motion passed.

2. Introductions of New Librarians.
 Paula introduced two new members to the library faculty, Setsuko Noguchi, Japanese Librarian and Cindy Ingold, Women and Gender Resources Librarian.

3. University Librarians Report
 The Deans met with the Provost and briefly with the Chancellor on March 15 to discuss the budget situation.  As previously announced there will be a significant shortfall this year.  Academic units have been asked to prepare plans for a 4-4.5% cut and Administrative units have been asked to prepare plans for a 5-5.5% cut.  Deans are to submit layoff plans to Personnel by April 15.  Only two programs will have no cuts, Graduate Fellowships and the Library.  The Chancellor sent the message that forward progress on campus will continue.  Note, however, that there will be NO new money for collections, except for perhaps up to $200,000, half of which is non-recurring.    Promotion and Tenure money will continue to be provided to units. Units were urged to continue to give money to new promotions as in the past.  No tenure decision will be made on the basis of available funds. There will be no raises except for those that have been negotiated under union contract.  Each unit will have to find ways to fund these contracted raises.  In the Library there is no intention of any layoffs and the Library will not submit a layoff plan to Personnel.  The hiring freeze is in affect and there will be no exceptions made by the Provost except in unusual cases.

 Dick Griscom asked if the hiring freeze means that if a position becomes vacant the position is lost.  Paula informed that vacancies will be treated as they normally are with the Executive Committee looking at each individual case.  She expects the budgets will be out in June.  The freeze may be reconsidered then or in the fall.  Several pots of money on campus, such as the faculty excellence funds, have been used towards the shortfall and are not available.  Paula Kaufman speculates that there will be significant layoffs in O & M, consequently there may be delays in maintenance

 We should have next years budget in early June.  Faculty Excellence money is being given up because of the budget cuts.  Paula feels there will be significant layoffs in O&M and everyone will need to be patient when making request for things that are done through those offices.

Bill Maher questioned if faculty are aware that zero dollars for collections means serials cancellations.  Paula indicated that the issue of Compendium due out soon will discuss the 7-8% impact on the Library's buying power, and that not just serials, but monographs as well as other resources will be affected.  The individual departmental library faculty have a responsibility to communicate this to the departments they serve.  Paula asked Karen Schmidt for input.  Karen said that if you have anything you can cancel with a June expiration date go ahead and cancel and they can always be reinstated later.  Karen Schmidt encouraged librarians to share their 5 and 10% cut lists with faculty now.

4. Committee Report
 Executive Committee (Leslie Troutman)
 The Committee met twice since last month’s faculty meeting, on February 25 and March 11.  The February 25 meeting was devoted to Ryoko Toyoma’s visit.  She discussed staff allocations and the framework in which they make decisions.  Some of the material presented was relevant and the Committee continues to discuss ways to use this information.

 Beth Sandore resigned as vice-chair, citing potential conflict of interest between her appointment as AUL and the responsibilities of the Vice Chair of the EC.  Leslie Troutman was elected as Vice Chair of the Committee.

 At the March 11 meeting the Committee had a brief follow up discussion of Toyama’s visit.  This discussion centered on the issues of faculty vacancies in a time of slim resources, vacancies in light of the Library’s strategic plan, and the need to develop contingency plans when vacancies occur.  The Committee reviewed and approved a proposal from Karen Schmidt for a Collection Advisory Committee to replace the Collection Development Committee.  In addition, they reviewed a memo from Barb Henigman, written in response to the committee’s questions about the Cataloging Policy Committee’s report.  The committee will review the report and Henigman’s memo for further discussion at the next meeting.  The committee discussed events in Arts and Humanities centered on collection issues.  A special committee meeting was scheduled for May 6 to work through additional agenda items.

 Research & Publications Committee (Marek Sroka)
 The committee funded 11 applications totaling $15,056 for research, which averages approximately $1,368 per application.  There was one meeting with untenured faculty organized by Bob Burger to discuss the RPC application process.  The committee still has money so they encourage people to apply.  They are planning one to two brown bag lectures from people who have received money and that are almost done with their projects so they can talk about it.  If you are working on a project and need a copy card send your information to Marek Sroka; they will fund them.

 Lynne Rudasill asked will any money left be used for travel grants.  Marek stated that the committee will talk to Paula about doing the same thing they did last year, which was fund travel for professional development.  This can include anyone going to a conference as well as paper presenters and speakers.

5. Old Business
a. Continuation of Discussion of Library Bylaws revision  (Bill Maher)
Two documents were distributed: the white one is a duplicate of the one distributed at the last meeting, including all three motions presented and discussed last time.  Motion one regarding the change in definition of  faculty and Motion two deleting references to the Deputy University Librarian were approved for transmission to the faculty for vote.

On motion 3, the meeting lost a quorum before a vote could be taken.  One amendment was approved.  The committee took this amendment and incorporated it into a substitute Motion 3 which is on the yellow handout.  The Motion 3 discussed last time has been withdrawn and replaced with this new one.

Article IX, Section 3 – the first sentence stays the same.  The 3rd sentence is to be deleted because conflict of interest is addressed in 4f.

Article IX, Section 4f.  In the last sentence after “conflict of interest” add “or who were a participant in the decision on which the grievance is based.”

Dick Griscom questioned who defines “conflict of interest.”  Leslie Troutman pointed out that in this example, the participation in the prior decision is a fact.

Maria Porta asked what if someone else thinks a person has a conflict of interest.  Bill replied that hopefully that would be handled in a collegial way, but it is not something that would be included in the Bylaws.

 Lynne Rudasill raised a question about section h and the notion of “completion.” As now stated, the wording implies that all items listed must be done for the grievance to be complete. In keeping with correcting the language, Lynne moved to add “or” in between each of the statements in Article IX, Section 4h.  Leslie Troutman seconded the motion.  During discussion, it was noted that the change would still not correct the problem.  Lynne and Leslie agreed to remove their motion.  Lynne then moved to insert “when any one of the following conditions is met” at then end of line h.  Leslie Troutman seconded it and the motion was unanimously approved.  Then Gail Hueting  moved to insert “if” before “at” in front of 4h2, which was seconded by Barbara Henigman.  Through discussion is noted that the previous motion created a complete sentence and the numbers under h would need to be changed to sentences as well.  Dick Griscom and Barbara Henigman agreed to withdraw their motion.  Then Dick Griscom moved to charge the responsibility for making the sentence structure in 1-6 in Article IX, Section 4h consistent before submitting the entire motion to the faculty to the Bylaws committee.  Leslie Troutman seconded the motion. All were in favor.

 Aaron Trehub questioned Article IX, Section 4b. What does this section mean?  Should “ decision” be supplemented with “action?”  Gene Rinkel stated that the action is specified by the grievant.  Leslie Troutman said that this section is to keep people from grieving salary and tenure decisions much after the fact.  Bill Maher gave an example of an “adverse teaching assignment” as an example of a trigger event.  Gene Rinkel said that the 30 days could be amended if that is a problem.  Leslie Troutman stated that perhaps it should say certain event or chain of events.  Gene Rinkel stated that one of those events would be the most recent event so chain of events is not needed.  Aaron Trehub moved that the words “or event” be inserted after “decision.”  It was seconded by Mary Laskowski.  Bart Clark noted that any date set by the University for action takes precedent over the Library Bylaws.  Maria Porta noted a typographical error which Bill Maher will correct.  All were in favor of accepting this motion.

 The motion was made to have approval of Motion 3 put to a faculty vote.  The motion carried.

 b.  Entertain motion to have Bylaws vote by mail rather than at the next faculty meeting in April.
 The motion was made by Leslie Troutman, seconded by Nancy O’Brien  to have the vote done by mail.  All were in favor

 Paula Kaufman thanked Paul Healey, Frances Harris, Gene Rinkel, and Bill Maher for their work on this.

Since there was no new business and no announcements, the meeting adjourned at 3:55pm.

Beth Woodard
Library Faculty Secretary