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


January 21, 2003
314 Illini Union
3:00 - 5:00 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 December 17, 2002 

       Michael Norman motioned to approve the minutes and Barbara Henigman seconded the motion. The motion passed, and the minutes were approved. 

2.        Introduction of new librarians 

Barbara Ford, Director of the Mortenson Center for International Library Programs and Mortenson Distinguished Professor (Paula Kaufman) 

Miranda Remnek, Head of the Slavic and East European Library (Bob Burger) 

Rod Allen, Director of Business Operations and Management Information (Bart Clark) 

Annette Morris, Academic Professional, Brittle Books Coordinator (Paula Kaufman) 

3.        University Librarian's report (Paula Kaufman)  

Paula Kaufman reported that the Governor asked for a delay in delivering his budget message, so there will probably not be further information on the budget for some time.  A dean's meeting is scheduled for January 22,  and expected topics will be budget issues and the prospect of recisions.  

       The Long-range Advisory Committee, comprised of senior faculty appointed by the Provost and Paula Kaufman, is working to help build the Library's vision of the future. The committee will meet with the Provost and Chancellor on January 22.  The main agenda items include:      

1.      Thanking the Provost and Chancellor for their support of the Library. The committee  would like to institutionalize support for the Library and will discuss ways of doing that.    

2.      The committee approached selected senior faculty from campus for their vision of what the library should be like in the next five to ten years.  Responses focused on the need to continue a combination of print and electronic materials. Nearly all the responses addressed the lack of comfortable space in the Main Library. The Committee will talk with the Chancellor and the Provost about improving conditions in the Main Library, from the bookstacks to the reading rooms to the departmental libraries. 

3.      The Committee will also choose a random selection of untenured faculty to contact by mail regarding their vision for the Library in the next five to ten years. 

4.      The Committee will ask for monetary support from the Chancellor for a symposium on campus next fall to bring in high-powered speakers to talk about issues that libraries and universities face in providing access to scholarly information.  Alex Scheeline is in charge of this effort 

5.      One committee member came up with the idea of building a library of the future in the south research park. Beth Sandore is helping to coordinate a half-day demo on what the Library and our colleagues in GSLIS are doing at the cutting edge of technological development. 

4.        Committee reports 

     Executive Committee (Greg Youngen) 

     The Executive Committee met twice since the last faculty meeting. On January 3 the committee discussed personnel and services.  It reviewed the International Strategy Plan and two of the committee members agreed to work with the committee that drafted the document and report back to EC at a later date.  The Faculty Review Committee and Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee presented a proposal to EC that both committees review the peer-review committee reports of untenured faculty this year.  Because there are thirty-seven untenured faculty members, the committees will share the review process. The EC has asked FRC and PTA for a report on how the process worked.  

At the January 13 meeting, Tom Kilton met with EC to discuss a faculty position request from the Arts and Humanities Division. Many questions were answered, but there are still a few points to clarify. EC discussed the issue of handling requests for new positions in light of the budget situation.  EC will not recommend new positions at this time and will not consider them until there is a clearer picture of the budget for next year. Discussion of the Information Technology Assessment Plan has been deferred to a future meeting. EC also discussed the Library's annual report to the Provost, and EC members provided individual comments to Paula Kaufman. 

     Faculty Review Committee: Personal annual report guidelines (Gail Hueting) 

     Gail Hueting reported that personal annual reports are due on February 17, and the guidelines are available on the web as a link from the Library Staff web page, by clicking on "FRC documents" at the bottom left of the page. She thanked Beth Woodard for preparing the revised documents and Donna Hoffman for putting them on the Library web site. 

     The guidelines have not changed substantially from last year.  The Library Strategic Plan is still the basis for organizing the Librarianship section of the report. The only change involves listing publications in chronological order rather than reverse chronological order.

     The scoring system is not expected to be substantially different this year. Since there were no salary increases last year, FRC will forward two lists of rankings to the University Librarian, for 2001 and 2002.  

     FRC cannot report yet on the survey of the annual evaluation process. Gail urged faculty to provide input on this by January 30, through the link

As regards evaluation of librarianship for people who did not work an entire year during the year under review, due to sabbaticals or other absences, FRC will likely take the data for the last full year for which the faculty member reported and incorporate that into the evaluation process. The person will likely need to provide a report for that full year and request to have the special evaluation procedure conducted. 

FRC will hold its annual workshop for untenured faculty on the preparation of the annual report and promotion dossier on Thursday, January 30 from 2:00 to 4:00 in Grainger Commons.   

Integrated Systems Coordinating Committee: New ILCSO working groups (Peggy Steele) 

Peggy reported on the ILCSO Users Advisory Group (IUAG) which consists of elected and appointed members.  This group was created to advise the ILCSO Board of Directors on the use and enhancement of Voyager.  The IUAG has been authorized by the ILCSO Board of Directors to create five working groups to address specific areas of interest and need with respect to Voyager.  The groups are: 

1.      Consortial cataloging and authority control task force

2.      Circulation and universal borrower functionality task force

3.      OPAC customization task force

4.      OPAC and data base re-indexing task force

5.      Cataloging electronic resources/electronic resource display in OPAC task force 

IUAG will soon be putting out a call for volunteers from among the faculty and staff.  Peggy encouraged people to volunteer themselves or someone in their library for one of these groups.  UIUC hopes to have representation on each of the task forces. 

In answer to questions, Peggy clarified that the task forces will consist of five to seven people each, and some will be cross-functional. There will be some organized meetings, probably here at the ILCSO office, but much of the work will be done virtually. 

Peggy announced that Voyager Briefing #6 meeting will be held from 10:00-12:00 in GSLIS, Room 126 on February 11.  It will address the serials and acquisitions implementation in Voyager. Michael Norman will talk about analytics and there will be some information about the reinstitution of billing and other circulation issues. 

Paula Kaufman added that at a recent board meeting, ILCSO admitted twelve new members.  Membership had been frozen for quite some time. One of the new members is the Newberry Library. 

5.        Other reports 

Discussion of the Library annual report and vision statement (Paula Kaufman) 

Paula Kaufman explained that in lieu of a budget report this year, the Library was asked to do a two-part annual report.  The first part concerns the impact of the current budget on the Library's ability to provide service, and the second part concerns how to reallocate to take advantage of new opportunities. The budget document is due on January 28. On February 21 there will be a meeting with the Provost and it is not known if there will be representatives from the campus budget committee at the meeting.    

     In a separate document due on January 30, the Library will submit a vision of the future of the Library over the next five years.  The Library's plan for the future is dependent on what the other collegiate units have submitted, and Paula will ask for the possibility of re-submitting our statement after seeing what those units have submitted. Work will continue on the document through May 1. 

The Administrative Council and Executive Committee met separately to talk about the vision document and the document has undergone many changes since the initial draft. Draft 17 is being discussed today. 

     Jane Block commended everyone who worked on the document, but expressed disagreement with the wording on page 7, in the second paragraph which reads: " also contributes to a mistaken impression, especially among undergraduates, that the services and collections provided within each of these libraries are exclusively available only to the faculty and graduate students...." She feels that we give excellent service to undergraduates and that they know that the collection is available to them. She also referred to the next sentence which reads: "The ways we have budgeted for collections over the years have also reflected and reinforced this discipline-based model." She stated that it is not clear what is meant by this statement or where it is going. 

     Chris Prom agreed, and stated that he is not sure that all undergraduates feel that way and pointed out that misconceptions can arise just from the fact that the Undergraduate Library is named "Undergraduate Library". His experience shows that undergraduates know about other libraries and use them.  He also suggested that the Undergraduate Library be included in the vision. 

     Kathleen Kluegel said she thinks the misconception about the libraries comes from the orientation that undergaduates receive.  They are told that the Graduate Library is off limits to undergraduates. It is written into the script of the Illini guides. 

     Lisa Hinchliffe replied that she has worked on training of orientation staff. Such information is not in the training script, but there continue to be misunderstandings that need to be corrected. 

     Al Kagan agreed. He disagreed with the wording on page 7, in the first sentence of the second paragraph which reads:  "One of our challenges over the next decade will be to sustain the best features of our historically discipline-centered Library, yet evolve into a more adaptive function-centered organization..." He stated that the discipline-based departmental libraries are our real strength, and although some functions need to be more centralized, the organizational structure with divisions is an important part of what we are and where our strength lies.  He would like to see wording indicating that we are retaining the divisions. 

     Roxanne Frey stated that she had the opportunity to preview the University's new website. The new map displays the Main Library as the Graduate Library. 

     Lynne Rudasill stated that over the last three years, she has spoken to the Illini guides and tried to get them to use the term "Main Library." The term "Graduate Library" may be coming from the teaching units.  One thing we can do is correct people when we hear it. 

She added that the concept of divisional libraries is a good one, and the model works very well. She does not see a tension between being a subject specialist and being part of the Library as a whole. 

     Tina Chrzastowski commented that we need to address change itself, to move away from the model of fifty years ago, and we are not at the point that we are working toward that.  We need to get past word changes and address real changes. 

     Kathleen Kluegel commented that the word "evolve" suggests that where we are is not a desirable place to be, and is not an appropriate word. Not all change is positive or leads to a better entity.  We are already one of the most efficient libraries, and it is not known that a merger will result in more efficiency. 

     Bart Clark agreed with the fact that the Library is efficient and that we should take pride in that, but that we are confronted by a situation in which there will be fewer dollars for the next couple of years. There is a possibility that we will receive $1 million less than we received in last year's budget, and whatever vision we have, we have to do it with fewer dollars. 

     Tom Kilton added that many division vision statements advocated a realignment of units, and the plan for reconfiguration of the second floor of the Main Library is designed to create a better atmosphere.  There is a commitment to change, but we are stuck with physical locations as they are for the time being. 

     Becky Smith commented that there are dire consequences for information technology if there is no money.  She would like us to engage in a discussion of how this will affect users. She referred to a study showing how much money users get back for every dollar spent by taxpayers on a library. Such a study would show how we are bringing in dollars in grants and generating research. 

Paula Kaufman welcomed further suggestions for rewording of the document. 

     U.S. Patriot Act: Summary and discussion of Library policy (Paul Callister) 

     Paul Callister provided a summary of the U.S. Patriot Act as a follow-up to the nationally broadcast teleconference of December 11, 2002.   

Paul summarized major issues, distributed a brief quiz, and addressed the Library's draft guidelines on the U.S. Patriot Act as to whether they adequately address the differences between warrants, court orders and subpoenas. An outline of his presentation, as well as a copy of the quiz, are posted on the library faculty meeting website as supplementary documents to the minutes of this meeting. He then answered questions posed by the faculty.  

Nancy O'Brien asked whether we have the right to ask for an ID if presented with a search warrant.  Paul said no, and that when a search warrant is presented, one should do as asked. 

Paula Kaufman added that the Library guidelines were developed by University Counsel in the context that it is unlikely that a warrant will be presented in such a way, and stressed that we need to try to protect patron privacy as much as we can. 

Kathleen Kluegel asked whether a student on duty when a warrant is presented can really be considered responsible for being served. Paul replied that if a warrant is presented, the student should do as asked. 

Lynne Rudasill urged that we write to our legislators and other government officials to influence this legislation. 

Al Kagan mentioned that ALA will probably adopt a resolution on the U.S. Patriot Act next week. 

Diane Schmidt commented that we need something easy and clear to tell our students. Paul replied that they should be given more instructions about warrants and the risks of not complying. 

Melody Allison raised the question of people impersonating law enforcement officers. Paul replied that in any case we need to distinguish between warrants, court orders, and subpoenas. 

Joseph Straw asked whether the people most likely to carry out warrants have information on the best place to serve them, as the circulation desk is probably not the best place to present a warrant. Paul replied that there are interagency guidelines on this.  

Michael Norman asked about the library policy on retaining circulation records, and suggested that we might possibly need to review the retention policy. 

Paula Kaufman added that the ARL website contains has information on the U.S. Patriot Act and ways to influence legislators. 

6.        Old business 

There was no old business. 

7.        New business 

There was no new business. 

8.        Announcements 

There were no announcements. 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45pm.

 Janice Pilch
Secretary of the Faculty