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

Tuesday, December 17, 2002
Heritage Room, ACES Library
3:00 - 5:00 pm

Paula Kaufman, presiding, called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm after it was determined that a quorum was present.  

1.        Approval of faculty meeting minutes of November 19, 2002 

Maria Porta motioned to approve the minutes and Tina Chrzastowski seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. 

2.        Addition to agenda 

Karen Schmidt made an announcement about note cards that the Library has designed. Packets include four designs, and are available for purchase in the University Librarians' office for $10, with the proceeds going to preservation.  

3.        University Librarian's report (Paula Kaufman)  

Based on the vision planning done by the units, there was a joint meeting of the Executive Committee and Administrative Council on December 16. The vision statements are now available on the Library website. The committees identified trends and also issues that were not included in the vision statements. They acknowledged that it is no longer important for the Library to strive to be number three in size, and that it needs to focus on quality service. Also, Paula Kaufman drafted a vision statement for the Library, and distributed copies of the statement. She welcomes substantive comments from the faculty and expects to discuss this again at the January faculty meeting.  

Now that EC and AC have met, the Library Budget Group will meet to draft a library-wide statement, which will be sent back to EC and AC for their input, and then returned to the Budget Group.  After that the budget plan will be presented to the faculty for approval, and then will be forwarded to the University by the end of January. 

4.        Committee reports 

Executive Committee (Sue Searing) 

The Executive Committee met three times since the last meeting of the Library faculty. There were regular meetings on November 25 and December 10, and a joint meeting with the Administrative Council on December 16. 

On November 25, EC was joined by Bart Clark to discuss a proposed policy on monetary donations by Library employees in support of their own programs. There was also a discussion with Paula Kaufman about faculty reactions to the vision/budget process.  EC approved a revised job description for the Assistant Reference Librarian for Digital Access.   

On December 10, EC endorsed emerita status for Marianna Tax Choldin. The committee also approved guidelines for the distribution of research "seed money" that will come from grant overhead, and we approved the charge and composition of a new Staff Development and Training Committee to advise Beth Woodard and the Library administration. In addition, EC discussed confidential personnel matters at both meetings. 

The joint meeting on December 16 with the Administrative Council focused on the budget documents submitted by each division.  EC identified trends in collective thinking, sought clarification on various aspects of the divisional visions, and noted elements that were left out.  Next, the Budget Group will work with the documents, and EC, AC and the faculty as a whole will have additional opportunities to provide input before the Library's vision statement is submitted to the Provost. 

Several other matters will come before EC in the near future, including: 

5.        Other reports 

Report by Mr. Terry McLennand, Assistant Director of State Relations, University Office of Governmental Relations, on University budget situation, followed by discussion on raising Library's profile with state legislature  

Mr. McLennand was invited to speak at the faculty meeting to provide insight on the University budget with respect to the state budget situation. He began by providing background perspective on the fact that just two years ago, when concluding the budget process for FY2002 in May 2001, the University was enjoying the best year in its history. $803.6 million was allocated for general revenue funds, with one third of the budget coming from state funds. After September 11, 2001 the University faced recisions, not only on general revenue funds but also on a $25 million group health insurance plan. The FY2003 budget was reduced to $730 million, representing a 9% reduction including the $25 million group health insurance. 

In FY2003 the total state budget is $52 billion, representing a reduction of  $112 million, or 2%, from FY2002. The state spends $145 million per day.  Looking ahead to FY2004, net receipts have fallen projection-wise by $350 million. It is projected that twenty Illinois school districts could be unable to pay their bills by the end of the school year, and as many as 80% of the school districts will be operating in the red by the end of the school year. The state faces a $3 billion to $4 billion deficit. The world's second largest airline which employed thousands in Illinois has filed for bankruptcy, the state's unemployment insurance fund is almost empty, many Illinois corporations are strapped for cash, the state has yet to pay off tax refunds for this year, and public pension funds need to be bolstered. At the same time, the governor-elect made hundreds of millions of dollars worth of campaign promises this fall and also said he will not raise taxes. 

This is the situation the University faces as the General Assembly resumes in January. Three top issues identified by President Stukel are: 

1)      Protection of the income fund, essentially consisting of  tuition. In 1995 control of the income fund was given to the University; before that the funds were appropriated by the General Assembly. The University wants to hold on to the income fund.

2)      Control of line-item budgeting. It is important to have local control over line-item budgeting to give the University more discretion. 

3)      Bureaucracy. The idea of a bloated bureaucracy was a campaign term for the governor-elect. But beyond the rhetoric, the total budget for personnel is $137 million, and 4.92% of that is for personnel at the Dean level or above. 

There are a number of options to how to approach this session of the legislature, and the dangers are apparent: 

Becky Smith asked about the perception of the Library in the state legislature. Mr. McLennand replied that UIUC as a whole is perceived as a treasure and a flagship, and the Library is very well regarded, but that we need to look at how further to improve the Library's status, and that leads to the question of how to afford it. Legislators are looking at what they can do to benefit their constituents, including the students, and the University is groping with that question. 

Becky Smith put forth the idea of focusing on jobs for the students, as the Commerce Library does. Mr. McLennand replied that that would appeal to legislators. It is important to show how the Library benefits other sectors in the state. In particular the legislature is interested in programs for non-traditional students. The legislature does not want to cut such programs, and it would be wise for the Library to show how it would benefit these programs. 

Sue Searing mentioned that distance education programs provided by the Library for off-campus students, especially for those living in rural areas, are an example of the Library's impact on constituents. Mr. McLennand mentioned Judy Irwin's work in advocating for non-traditional students and distance learning. 

Maria Porta mentioned that the Library has been appraised for $1.5 billion, but is not even  insured, and that it would be in the interest of the legislature to protect it. Mr. McLennand agreed and stated further that since the University has made the investment to keep its programs high in world rankings nationally and internationally, it should question whether it can afford not to keep them there. 

Lynn Wiley mentioned that the Library shares materials statewide, nationally, and worldwide, with the research community, corporations, elementary schools, and other academic institutions, in all disciplines.  

Priscilla Yu commented that we need to emphasize to the legislature how important education is to the citizens of Illinois, and that if we do not have the resources, the job cannot be done. She urged Mr. McLennand to emphasize to the legislature that the Library is the heart of the University. She also asked whether the governor thinking of capping tuition. Mr. McLennand replied that he is, but that we have to be prepared to look at what is on the table for negotiation. A tuition cap is not desirable, but we might be willing to take a cap on tuition if we can hold onto the income fund, which gives us onsite discretion and control.  We cannot fight on all fronts, and may have to give up something. We do not want a cap, and we do need to keep local control, and a cap is a local control issue. So far there have not been any proposals from the governor, but in January things would be clearer. 

Tina Chrzastowski asked whether the revenue from the Chicago Bears games, which was more than expected, resulted in additional funds to the University, and whether pre-games been planned for next year. Mr. McLennand replied that no further pre-games have been planned, and that there was not much state involvement with the Bears games, which worked to the University's benefit.  

He concluded by mentioning that there will be a lobbying day in the near future and would like as many people as possible to participate. 

Paula Kaufman stated said that she wanted to assure the untenured faculty that their jobs are not in jeopardy because of the budget situation. 

Voyager update (Peggy Steele) 

Peggy Steele reported that the ILCSO Users' Advisory Group is about to create a series of new committees.  The purpose is to advise the ILCSO office on what needs to be done in furthering the implementation and to advocate for the needs of the ILCSO libraries. Committees will be created for cataloging, acquisitions, serials, circulation, and OPAC. 

Another Voyager briefing will be held in late January or early February. It will cover an overview of the serials implementation, a discussion on analytics, information on the billing feed from the Library to campus accounts payable, and a discussion of what to do about material that has been charged out for a very long time and is repeatedly renewed.  

On the topic of problems in Voyager with universal borrowing, requesting, and request promotion, efforts have been made to sort out the differences between problems associated with our adjustment to the system and real software bugs and design problems. Statistics are being compiled to show the impact of system bugs on service and the additional work being required by Library staff, and the statistics will be given to Paula Kaufman soon after the holidays. 

There is a database conversion clean-up project in progress, dealing with four problems:

Discussion of governing differences between the Executive Committee and Administrative Council (Paula Kaufman) 

In response to a request to elucidate the governing differences between Administrative Council and Executive Committee for the benefit of untenured faculty, Paula Kaufman referred to the Library bylaws. 

The Administrative Council serves as an advisory committee to the University Librarian with regard to the promulgation and implementation of standards, regulations and procedures that relate to the general operating policies of the Library and serves to provide other advisory functions as the University Librarian requests. Its primary responsibility is the day-to-day management of the Library. 

The Executive Committee is the principal advisory body to the University Librarian.  It advises on the formulation and execution of Library-wide policy, including but not limited to: 1) creation and appointment of library-wide committees, and plans for implementation of committee  recommendations; 2) selection of priorities to be reflected in the Library's budget; 3) proposal of library-wide program initiatives and policy changes;  4) recruitment and selection of library faculty and many other faculty-related issues. It advises the University Librarian on appointments of the Associate University Librarians, and advises the Chancellor annually regarding the reappointment of the University Librarian. It works with the Senate Committee on the Library to prepare for the approval of a plan for the University Librarian's five-year evaluation. 

Discussion of faculty use of Corporate Time (Joe Zumalt) 

Joe Zumalt presented his views in favor of using Corporate Time as a universal time management tool for the library faculty. He commented that an important part of librarianship is communication, but that communication among librarians is sometimes difficult.  Corporate Time is available and would make scheduling meetings much easier if everyone were using it.  Only about one third of the faculty are using CT.  He opened the topic up for discussion by asking why people are not using it and how can we might improve the task of time management among the faculty through use of this tool. 

Kathleen Kluegel replied that this technology puts an implicit priority on meetings, and implies that meetings trump everything else, including intellectual activity. Unless one blocks off time for other activity, it gives others the ability to control one's time. 

Nuala Bennett replied that CT can be set up to send an e-mail that allows you to confirm whether you want to attend a meeting, still leaving you in control. 

Lisa German mentioned that she came from an institution that mandated use of a time management system. E-mails multiply when people are not using a time management system, and there is not enough time to handle all the e-mailing involved in setting up meetings. 

Joe Zumalt added that once the system is set up, one gains efficiency by using it. 

Sue Searing commented that she was using CT but dropped out after about a month because of the learning curve in using the system efficiently.  She signed up to take a campus course on CT, but the course was cancelled due to lack of enrollment. It is also time-consuming to learn about purchasing a PDA, and it would be helpful if the Systems Office had a cheat sheet for purchasing PDAs. 

Maria Porta mentioned that she currently uses CT and has a Palm Pilot, and thinks that, despite the learning curve, it is convenient for setting up and viewing schedules. But she mentioned that there should be training on how to use it best. Some recently posted appointments were displayed to other people for no apparent reason. 

Karen Schmidt added that one can program CT not to display certain appointments. 

Cindy Ingold stated that she came from an institution where time management was mandated, and thinks that the time spent setting up meetings through e-mail is greater than the time it takes to learn the program. However, training should be provided. The frustrating thing now is that only some people use CT. We need to make a decision and stick to it. 

Al Kagan stated that he is not an advocate of CT because he wants to retain control of his time and have the information in one place. He does not have problems setting up meetings, using a little book that he carries in a pocket. 

Bill Maher added that he also prefers a book for scheduling, and is not an advocate of CT. He feels that we do not exist to go to meetings, and that one of the most dysfunctional things about librarianship is the extent to which we chase after communication, thinking that we are chasing after substance. He feels that we do not need more meetings, and is against anything that makes meetings easier to set up. 

Lisa Hinchliffe commented that the figure indicating that one-third of the faculty use Corporate Time is probably an overestimate. She asked whether there is a proposal to adopt CT or whether this is just a general discussion. 

Joe Zumalt replied that it is just a discussion, but that we are out of step with the rest of the library academic world.  We need to think about whether we have to have a choice or whether the organization can mandate something even if it creates discomfort. 

Pat Allen replied that he has been hesitant to use CT partly because he does not have a sense of an institutional commitment to CT and does not want to use it if it is going to disappear. We do not know if it is the best product. 

Joe Zumalt asked who would make this commitment.  

Kathleen Kluegel asked whether the System Office supports CT. 

John Weible replied that CITES has two official and separate calendar systems for the campus.  CT replaced MeetingMaker, which had many technical problems. The second system in use is Exchange; both have advantages and disadvantages. Systems strongly supported CT so that everyone in the Library would be using one system. The license for CT was also cheaper and it did not interfere with our e-mail system.  The other products are very expensive in comparison. 

Becky Smith mentioned that she uses CT but is primarily an Outlook user because it is much easier to use in communicating with customers and it is an all-in-one package.  With a calendar program a person can manage and control time better.  The best system is one that uses both e-mail to provide the option of refusing a meeting, and a time management function.  We should have a system that everyone uses. 

Nancy O'Brien added that more people would consider using CT if the Library funded PDAs for everyone. There are also privacy and academic freedom issues to consider.

Bill Maher said that it would be useful to have training and good written instructions on use of CT as a starting point. 

Joe Zumalt asked about the introduction of CT in the Library. John Weible replied that there were two major factors in encouraging CT. One was that CITES migrated all existing MeetingMaker users to CT, the second that the first year of use of CT is free. 

6.    Old business      

There was no old business. 

7.    New business      

There was no new business. 

8.      Announcements 

Bart Clark announced that as of January 21 the new Director of Business Operations will be Rodney Allen, who comes to the position from the College of ACES. 

Paula Kaufman urged faculty members to look at the draft Library vision statement and at the division reports on the web. 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 pm.