Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting

Meetings Previous Years

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting


June 17, 2003
210 Illini Union
3:00 - 4:30 pm 

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

1.        Approval of faculty meeting minutes of May 20, 2003 

       Kathleen Kluegel motioned to accept the minutes as submitted. Karen Schmidt seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. 

2.        Introduction of new librarians 

Nuala Bennett introduced Amy Maroso, Project Coordinator for the IMLS "Basics and Beyond" Project.   

       Bob Burger introduced Sibusisiwe Thembela, Deputy Client Services Librarian from Witts University in South Africa, a Mortenson Center associate. 

3.        University Librarian's report and discussion of Library budget and University Library Vision (2008) document  (Paula Kaufman) 

Paula announced that a graduate assistant audit will be done later this year, probably in mid-fall, to ensure that GAs are doing pre-professional work. 

       Paula encouraged faculty to take part in the many cross-campus initiatives in progress, as it is important that the Library be represented in them. The initiatives are listed on the Chancellor's website.  


There will probably not be any new information on the budget until mid-July.  The Board of Trustees will meet on June 27 to discuss tuition. The Library is not expecting to lay off permanent staff, although student hours will be reduced. There are 18 vacant positions that will not be filled. The Library will be looking at the distribution of staff and possibly making transfers; the Budget Group is working on this plan.  We also need to firm up the operations budget, which includes everything except personnel and collections. Next year we will borrow $300,000 from the collections budget to help. We will issue a list of reductions in the operations budget. 

       Cindy Kelly has arranged for three optional two-hour stress reduction sessions.  These will be paid for out of unrestricted gift monies. Katie Clark asked if GAs are eligible to attend the stress sessions. Paula answered that first priority will be given to permanent staff. 

       University Library Vision (2008) document

Diane Schmidt is the new chair of the Strategic Planning Committee. The Library will be in its fifth year of the Strategic Plan and the committee will be working on a new five-year Strategic Plan. The planning process starts with the development of a vision statement. The Administrative Council and the Executive Committee members met together twice and developed a list of talking points that fed into a vision statement. Paula Kaufman drafted the piece on top, Bob Burger and Lisa Hinchliffe took the notes from those meetings and drafted a vision statement that was then edited by Nancy O'Brien and Bill Maher.  The purpose of today's discussion is to make sure the vision statement has the right direction. 

       Frances Harris cautioned that we not enter into a discussion of collection vs. people, as it is a false dichotomy. 

       Mary Stuart asked where the written input would go. Paula answered that the information will go to the Strategic Planning Committee and they will work or re-work the vision statement. 

       Bill Mischo stated that PSED will meet to put something together. The statement needs more balance and stronger language about what we have been doing with the academic departments, such as building two new libraries, and other collaboration with departmental faculty. 

       Tim Cole stated that this document is more elaborate than we have had but it does not seem to build from the existing Strategic Plan, and asked why it is being done this way.  Paula Kaufman answered that it is useful and important to use the current Strategic Plan to inform a future plan, and also important to take a fresh look at where we want to go. The meeting between AC and EC was to get discussion going to help inform the Strategic Planning Committee and its work. Tim Cole suggested that EC should look at how they developed the plan five years ago, when it involved about half the faculty working in task forces and teams. He suggested involving the faculty in a major way to write portions of the Strategic Plan and urged the committee to use that process as a model for this one. 

       Paula Kaufman said that EC and SPC can meet to talk about the process itself. Diane Schmidt stated that SPC is not interested in doing all the work by itself. 

       Barbara Henigman reinforced Frances Harris' comment about not getting into a false dichotomy. She said she thought the idea was to propose a vision that maintains quality faculty and quality staff and not pitting them against each other. 

       Pat Allen asked whether there is a common notion on how a plan gets implemented after it is written. Paula Kaufman replied that the Strategic Plan should form the basis of planning in units. Goals and annual reports are tied to the strategic plan. In the early years of this strategic plan there were very detailed implementation schedules set out.  Those got to be a little restrictive and prescriptive. This plan has served us very well in setting a concrete set of goals and letting people tie to them in the way they see best in the units. 

       Paula Watson suggested that we be mindful of the audience and think about how others outside the Library will read the document, and whether some of the points that are important to us are as important to people outside the Library. 

       Maria Porta mentioned that the first paragraph says the Library's major strength is the people and there is only one mention of the collection.  Because the world sees us as a collection, without pitting one against the other, we need to come to terms with such a statement. 

4.    Committee Reports

       Executive Committee (Sue Searing) 

       The Executive Committee has met twice since the last full meeting of the faculty. 

       On June 2, Al Kagan and Margaret Chaplan presented information about the negative effects of the implementation of the new pay date and the reduced September paycheck. As an outcome of that discussion, the Executive Committee voted to send a letter to the Board of Trustees before their July meeting. EC is currently reviewing a draft of the letter. 

       Also on June 2, EC made plans for the upcoming vacancy in the Veterinary Medicine Library. Given the budget situation and the expectation that there will be interested candidates within the Library, EC approved an internal search. Questions were later raised about the legality and/or wisdom of this decision, but following consultation with campus administration and further discussion at the June 9 meeting, EC decided to proceed with an internal search. The search committee has been announced. 

       The committee also discussed a proposal from the Special Collections Division concerning the upcoming vacancy for Head of the Rare Books and Special Collections Library. EC accepted the division's recommendation to conduct an internal search for an interim head, and to appoint a working group of Library and campus faculty to reassess the position and its emphases.       

       At the June 9 meeting, there was a request from the Map and Geography Library to fill the recently vacated Assistant Map and Geography Librarian position. This, along with other faculty positions, is on hold until July, when more is known about the budget. Although EC discussed the implications of offering reduced appointments to Library faculty (for example, 9-month contracts), there is no encouragement at present for this direction. 

       EC unanimously endorsed the User Education Committee's " Statement on Learning Goals." They approved the creation of an Electronic Resources Work Group, with some changes in the wording of the charge to specify coordination with "appropriate individuals and relevant policy-making bodies." EC decided to nominate a librarian for the Campus Budget Oversight Committee. EC also discussed the Library's endowment funds for collections and the desirability of spending the endowment income each year, and agreed that Karen Schmidt should have oversight of these funds. 

       Toward the end of the June 9 meeting, the committee began a discussion of the role of division coordinators and unit heads in the setting of individual librarians' goals. A faculty member had questioned whether the goal-setting process recently instituted is allowable under the Library faculty by-laws. EC will continue to explore the implications of this process at the next meeting. On the agenda for meetings in the near future are the establishment of a process for post-tenure review, in line with the Provost's Communication No. 21, and the preparation of a statement that affirms that research is part of our jobs and that time should be taken for research. Finally, the Executive Committee submitted an evaluation of Paula Kaufman's performance to the Provost in April. EC has been informed that the Provost has re-appointed Paula as University Librarian for another year. 

       Mary Stuart asked why EC is looking at post-tenure requirements. Sue Searing replied that  EC is looking at the process, not the guidelines or policies. 

       Mary Stuart offered the opinion that it is a mistake to do an internal search for the VetMed position. The process of doing national searches is a fundamental part of our system, this is regrettable, and expedience is not a sufficient justification to limit the search. 

       Al Kagan mentioned with regard to post-tenure review that two years ago, the Senate passed a document on the post-tenure review process that was two-sided. One side was for someone wanting to initiate a review, and the other part was for an administrative body to initiate a post-tenure review because of a problem. This went along with a document that was passed in the Senate on sanctions. That is where this whole thing probably started. There is a Senate document that you can look at to see what needs to be done. We should put something in writing about the process. 

       Tim Cole questioned the extent do to which we know the procedures and rationale that have been used to justify an internal search vs. a national search in other colleges, how common the practice is, and what kind of reasons are used as exceptions to allow it. Paula Kaufman replied that the indication was that exceptions are made in some cases to allow this. Tim suggested that it might be unwise to proceed without this information, and that EC should ask for information from Campus Personnel on frequency and justification for internal searches. Sue Searing replied that EC would take this under advisement. 

       Bart Clark said that faculty are normally selected through a national search.  But the majority of administrative posts and unit head positions are appointed internally. Paula Watson added that the implication of an internal search is that you can acquire as good a person internally as you can by doing a national search. 

       Maria Porta asked why we do not appoint a temporary head and then organize a search. Sue Searing replied that EC does not believe that in the near future, with the budget situation, it can do a national search.  EC thought it could be filled internally and opened up to all faculty. 

       Pat Allen asked about expected time frame for an internal search, and what will happen if it fails. Sue Searing replied that a search committee has been appointed.  The position becomes available sometime this fall. 

       Tim Cole suggested that there is a practical concern in that with an internal search, one position is gained while another is lost, and another search starts all over again. Making the budget the rationale for doing an internal search opens up additional problems.  

       Katie Clark asked whether someone outside the University could apply. Sue Searing replied that this was not possible with an internal search. 

       User Education Committee (Lisa Hinchliffe) 

Lisa listed the members of the committee for 2002-2003 and thanked outgoing members.

The User Education Committee meets monthly, usually on the second Monday of the month. Minutes are posted on the committee web site and linked from LON.  The User Education Committee has been quite active this year and has accomplished the following: 

In answer to questions, Lisa provided an explanation of curriculum mapping, explained that the committee works closely with the faculty to pursue areas strategically and choose where to place the emphasis, and explained that the campus course management software will be the Web CT Vista project.  CITES has named the initiative to support online courses COMPASS.  She also stated that there would not be plans for system wide freshman orientation, but that a working group could be organized to look at a first year orientation. 

Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (Kathleen Kluegel) 

Kathleen Kluegel presented a mid-year report for the committee. The Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee met to review the issues that had been raised in the discussion with Kathleen Pecknold and the subsequent recommendations by the Executive Committee. On most of these issues, the Executive Committee and the P&T are in full agreement. 

P&T supports the continuation of the practice of writing a letter to Paula Kaufman with the results of the promotion deliberations of the committee.  P&T also supports the position of not seeing the letter that the Faculty Review Committee writes to Paula Kaufman with their perspective on the candidate's case.  This supports the independence of the two levels of review and assures Paula Kaufman gets the most useful evaluations of the candidate. 

P&T will also be clarifying the conflict of interest aspects of the promotion and tenure process. A conflict of interest exists whenever a member of the committee has any conflict, e.g. serving in the same unit, personal animus, or a relationship beyond the strictly collegial.  The person must declare a recusal and leave the room as soon as the candidate's case comes up.  The person should not declare the reason for the conflict of interest.  The committee member must not discuss the case with any other member of the committee before, during, or after deliberations. P&T will be improving the language in the documentation and will also be incorporating the procedures to be followed in our guidelines for the work of the committee.  It recommends that FRC adopt these conflict of interest procedures as well. 

On the issue of P&T's role in the Peer Review Committee Report process, the committee disagrees with the recommendations of the Executive Committee.  All agree that the FRC has an extremely heavy workload in conducting this review of the PRC reports.  However, their role duplicates Paula Kaufman's role.  Paula reads all the PRC reports and meets with the candidate to discuss progress towards tenure. Therefore, it is the recommendation of P&T that FRC not review the PRC reports. 

In the informal feedback that the P&T has had on the Peer Review Committee reports, it has been noted that the Library currently lacks a mechanism for providing feedback to the report writers on the effectiveness of their evaluation and documentation of the candidates.   However, the P&T is not volunteering to serve in this role. A senior member of the administration with experience in the promotion and tenure process could serve this function. P&T feels that the best role for it to play in the Peer Review Committee Report process is to provide annual workshops for Peer Review Committee members.  We plan to continue to do this. 

In response to questions, Kathleen explained that in cases where there is a conflict of interest, colleagues in the same unit should recuse themselves-- this is campus practice that was strongly recommended by Kathleen Pecknold. As for the status of Peer Review Committee members and paper preparers, the situation is unclear. Kathleen said that P&T would take this issue under advisement. In response to the question of whether P&T would clarify instructions for promotion from associate to full professor, Kathleen replied that it is up to the full professors of the Library to develop procedures with which they are comfortable. Paula Kaufman added that the full professors meet once a semester, so we will put that on the fall agenda. 

Research & Publication Committee (Katie Clark) 

Katie listed the committee members, and provided information on the grants awarded this year. During the academic year, of August 21 st 2002 to - June 2003, the RPC received 13 grant applications and awarded 12 to a total of 14 Library faculty.  Grants were for a variety of needs - 7 for student assistance; 3 for travel; 4 for photocopying or making slides; one for data analysis; one for equipment.  

The total amount awarded was $12,674.70, for an average of $1056.23 / grant; the range was from about $360 to about $2200.  The total amount spent and obliged by RPC during 2003 was $17,711.30.  The FY budget for RPC was $34,011.   

The RPC provided $205.45 worth of photocopy cards to a total of 5 people.  These are available for the asking in either 300 or 500 denominations.  Send request to the Chair, with a brief title of the project the card is needed for.  Faculty may request up to $75 worth of cards / year. One 500 copy card currently is worth $30.25. 

Starting in December, on the second Tuesday of each month at noon, the RPC hosted six brown bags sessions.  There were 11 presentations given by 15 people.  Attendance usually was about 15-20 people. 

The RPC website ( was revamped to include:

RPC Equipment:

       Staff Development Committee (Beth Woodard) 

Since its inaugural meeting in February, the Staff Development and Training Committee has been meeting bimonthly to discuss strategies for identifying training needs and economical means for providing that training. 

The committee has been focusing on how best to assess training needs. While continuing to work on a survey to collect data from individuals and from supervisors, the Administrative Council was also queried as to the advisability of including training as a required part of discussions in annual evaluations.  The discussion of this issue is ongoing, but the committee is finalizing a web survey and hopes to finalize it in the next few weeks. The coordinator has established a web site at which includes links to a calendar of training opportunities in the library and on campus.  

Currently, a list of videos in the Undergraduate Library Media Center that can support training programs is being developed. The committee collaborated with the User Education Committee to identify software by E*vanced Solutions as software suitable to manage workshop registration and attendance.  When purchased and set up properly, this software will replace the current calendar of library offerings on the web. We hope to have this running in July to allow us to use it for graduate assistant training signups.  Library-wide orientation for graduate assistants will be Thursday, August 21, in the morning. 

The coordinator worked with an outside consultant, Wanda Plawer, to develop a proposal for a series of basic workshops on Microsoft Word, Excel, and Access, with focused, shorter training sessions on specific advanced topics, based on committee input.  The proposal was submitted to the Budget committee for consideration as a pilot project, and just under $2,000 was approved for the cost of 32 hours of workshops and for training materials.  A total of 11 workshops have been held with a low attendance of 9, a high of 27, and an average of 16 at each session. Evaluations are being collected and will be analyzed. 

Joe Zumalt led an EndNote workshop in May that was well received. The next project of the committee is to develop an orientation checklist for new employees. 

Strategic Planning Committee (Diane Schmidt) 

The committee met once this year. Next year SPC will meet more frequently. Diane listed the committee members present at the meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 2003. The first item on the agenda was discussion of the effectiveness of the Strategic Plan, and a discussion of considerations for the new plan to be drafted next year. The open structure of the plan allows for easy meshing with individual annual reports. However, there are many areas of librarianship that do not fit easily under the plan's goals. There is no distilled version of the plan that makes it easy to remember. The plan is comprehensive but maybe too general. We've never achieved "buy-in" in support of the plan from the library staff. The plan is too geared toward administration, less to faculty, and not at all to staff. The plan was written as a response to a campus mandate rather than internally generated by the library to direct its future. 

The committee then turned to identifying priorities from the plan to direct library activities during the next year. They discussed whether we want to approach the topic during these tight economic times from a traditional viewpoint centered on protecting the collection or see this period as an opportunity to focus resources on new initiatives. The consensus was that the Library should try to do some of both: maintain most current activities but try some new initiatives as much as funding permits. 

There was discussion on the importance of Goal 2 (Fulfill the information needs of current and future users by building on, preserving and extending our preeminent collections), on Goal 4 (Recruit and develop the best faculty and staff available to ensure the continued excellence of library services), and Goal 5 (Provide the library facilities and environment our users and staff need to do their work). The highest priority is sustaining morale during this difficult budgetary cycle.  

The goals determined as priorities for the year are:

1) to provide exception services, increasing the donor base for services support;

2) to develop a materials allocation plan that equitably distributes funds for collections, building the donor base for collections support;

3) to equip life-long learners - to work collaboratively with teaching faculty and IT staff on instructional projects and programs;

4) to recruit and develop the best faculty and staff - to create a system of faculty and staff performance evaluation, create an ongoing internal training and development program for all Library faculty and staff;

5) to provide adequate library facilities - to ensure an adequate work environment for the delivery of services, including appropriate technology, and increase the donor base for facilities and equipment;

6) to strengthen the campus and library reputations - to solidify our impact and leadership in professional associations. 

The Committee recommended the appointment of Diane Schmidt to replace Janis Johnston as the committee chair for 2003-2004. It discussed several topics for the spring retreat including, "strategic planning," "know the University," "affinities," and "learning about learning styles." Kim Reynolds agreed to chair the group for this year, but then it was decided not to have a retreat. 

Nominations, Elections, and Voting Procedures Committee: Discussion of methods for recruiting candidates (David Griffiths) 

David Griffiths explained the change in procedure for finding candidates to run for elected positions. The new procedure is to include on the ballot only people who want to be elected. The previous method was to leave everyone on the ballot unless people contacted the committee to have their names removed. That method usually resulted in 40-100 e-mail requests to de dropped from the ballot and was quite tedious. NEVP would also have to contact people who did not opt out but who would not have been pleased to have their name on the ballot. The committee decided that it would be more efficient to place on ballots only those who want to run for office following an announcement. The second reason for the change is that NEVP knows of cases in which faculty members overlooked election announcements and were elected when they did not want to be. NEVP is confident that anyone listed on a ballot in 2003 wants to be elected. Finally, NEVP would like to find a way to automate some of the process, but this will take time. 

4.        Old business

There was no old business. 

5.        New business

There was no new business. 

6.    Announcements      

Paula Kaufman announced that the Campus Forum on the Future of the Library will be held on October 30, to include ten nationally prominent speakers.  

       On October 10 the Library will celebrate the 10 millionth volume. It is still not too late to submit a contribution to Karen Schmidt for the 10 millionth-and-one volume. On that day we will "go live" with the Campus Campaign for the Library, and the UI Foundation will have its annual meeting, focusing on campus libraries. Paula will be the luncheon speaker. GSLIS students will be recording the event and developing a web site and there should be a final product from the event. 

       Bob Burger announced that there will be a meeting with PC&M to discuss bids for Oak St. The lowest bid was $800,000 over the architect's estimate.  The Provost kicked in $400,000 and the architects, Library, and contractors are to make cuts to come up with the other $400,000.  Bob and Bart Clark are reviewing each cut. The ground-breaking is projected for August 2003, with an estimated move-in date of November 2004. 

       Bob also announced that before an offer was made for the position of Director of Facilities position, one of the candidates took a job as the Associate Campus Architect.  Another candidate will be interviewed on July 1. 

       Barbara Ford announced that the Mortenson Distinguished Lecture will be held on September 23 at 4:00pm. Jesus Lau, a prominent Mexican academic librarian and chair of the IFLA Information Literacy Section, will be the speaker. The Mortenson Center is establishing a new fund, the Marianna Tax Choldin Fund. Ralph Fisher, emeritus professor of History, has played a key role in initiating this. 

       Lisa Hinchliffe announced in connection with the GSLIS-Library Teaching Alliance that in July there will be an opportunity to participate in a project to develop your own teaching portfolio. Also, in spite of the budget, the Teaching Alliance has been funded by the Provost Initiative for Teaching Enhancement Grant Fund at 50% of its request this year. The theme for next year is "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning." 

Priscilla Yu announced that Barbara Ford will speak at the ACRL International Relations Committee meeting at ALA on June 22 from 8:30-11:00 at the Metropolitan Hotel in Toronto. 

Kathleen Kluegel motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Beth Woodard seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm.

 Janice Pilch
Secretary of the Faculty