Library Faculty Meeting
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Illini Union, Room 314A
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 December 16, 2003
The minutes were approved by a motion from Al Kagan, seconded by Beth Woodard.
2. University Librarian’s report-Kaufman
Paula reported that there are two people in the Library who have received wonderful honors recently. First, Jennifer Hain Teper has been named one of Library Journal’s Movers and Shakers. Second, Jane Block has been named to an international jury to help determine the winner of a prize in Belgium for Young Humanistic Scientists. This is an award equivalent to a Nobel in that field, awarded by the King of Belgium.
Paula passed along information on the budget from Rod Allan. The University is negotiating with the Graduate Employee Organization (GEO) regarding graduate assistant (GA) benefits. It’s very likely that health benefits and some of the McKinley fee will be paid for by the departments. The Library will be looking at about $21,000 to pay for those benefits in the next school year. These benefits will be included as additional fringe on all grants that start or are renewed in FY05. This will affect all GAs that are on current grants, so in July the departments will have to figure out how to pay these fees out of existing grant budgets.
There appears to be a possibility that there will not be a cash rescission this year. The Library is currently holding $300,000 in case we are asked to give this money back.
In FY05 there will most likely be budget reductions again. Right now projections estimate cuts will be half of what they were this year. For the Library, this year’s cut was $1.2 million.
Lisa German asked that since the Library GAs are not part of the GEO, will the Library still have to pay the benefits? Paula answered that all graduate students get the health benefits even if they are not part of the GEO.
Paula added that the draft of the annual report goes to the Provost by January 28, and asked that all faculty give their input to Paula before Friday the 23rd.
3. Committee Reports
Executive Committee (EC) - Woodard
The Library Executive Committee has met 4 times since the last faculty meeting on December
16, 2003: on Monday, December 22, 2003, on Monday, January 2, 2004, on Monday, January 12,
2004, and without Paula Kaufman on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 to discuss David Swanson's letter
dated December 23, 2003.
The committee approved a candidate for the Interim Senior Monographic Cataloger position.
Search committees were suggested for the Rare Book and Special Collections Head, the Music Library Head, and the Digital Services position. Initial recommendations were made for the Law reference position. Discussions continue in regards to the Labor & Industrial Relations Library and the Undergraduate Library instruction coordinator position. The Executive Committee was asked by Administrative Council (AC) members if they would consider deferring these positions to support the Oak Street project. EC discussed each of the positions and concluded that none could be deferred.
EC discussed the issue of half-time librarians, and affirmed that hiring for a half-time position is not in the best interest of the Library or the faculty and would only be considered in rare instances as an exception.
Peer review committee appointments were made for a new, untenured faculty member.
The committee approved emeritus status for a retiring colleague.
Area Studies requested a name change. The name suggested seemed to overlap with the international and multicultural dimensions of other divisions, so the Executive Committee is asking Area Studies to consider another name. Area Studies was encouraged to ask for EC's input again, or to bring it to a faculty meeting for discussion and approval.
The Sousa Archives would like to change its name to the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music. The Executive Committee asked Scott Schwartz to get the director of the School of Music's input as to how the School of Music would feel about the name change, which met with the school's approval. Paula Kaufman checked with the university administration about the use of the word "center," and forwarded a formal request.
A question arose regarding the lack of division representation on the Services Advisory Committee, especially if this committee was charged with implementing a stacks reconfiguration plan. Since the reconfiguration committee has not yet been discharged, the Executive Committee will keep the Services Advisory Committee as it is for now, and assess committee composition at the end of the year before new appointments are made.
Question Time Issues:
On Sunday, December 28, room 66 Library was used for an outside function, and the entire building was unlocked. Paula Kaufman spoke to Facilities and Services (F&S) and asked them not to schedule 66 Library when the building is closed as there is no way to shut it off from the rest of the building, as they had supposed it could be.
Untenured Faculty Members serving as Faculty Secretary:
The Faculty Review Committee (FRC) had asked the Executive Committee to consider removing untenured faculty from consideration for election to Faculty Secretary. After input from recent untenured faculty members holding that position, EC feels that this opportunity provides a valuable experience to untenured faculty, but wants to make sure that untenured faculty feel free to remove their names from the ballot.
Some faculty had expressed concern about the difficulty of individuals in one-person libraries taking sabbaticals. Paula Kaufman investigated whether 6 month sabbaticals could be taken in 2 3-month increments, and this is not permissible under the statutes. When divisions cannot arrange for coverage of Library faculty on sabbatical, the Library Administration will.
Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) Payments for Library-faculty taught courses:
Currently GSLIS puts $3,000 in an account in GSLIS that the faculty who teach a course in GSLIS can access for graduate assistant positions or for travel. Other adjuncts are paid at varying rates. John Unsworth would like to regulate the payments, giving all faculty $5,000 per course plus a 1% increase for every year they've taught. Beginning on AY05, Library
faculty who teach at GSLIS will have the choice of being paid as an overload (in which case they can do no GSLIS-related work on "Library time") or having the Library receive the funds, from which they can draw for GA or student help, equipment, or travel.
Rare Book/Special Collections Task Force Report Discussion:
The committee appreciated the time and effort that went into the report and agreed with most of its recommendations, though the Executive Committee felt that it did lean away from time and effort spent on development activities. EC feels that the position requires that the Head
be a presence in the Library, on campus, and with donors and potential donors. Development does need to be a part of the position and the Head would need to be able to work closely with the Development office.
Provost Herman's letter:
Provost Herman's letter (via David Swanson) dated December 23rd referenced a Senate resolution on guidelines for dean evaluation committees in 1996 which is inconsistent with the Library's bylaws in terms of who chairs the 5 year review committee of deans and specified procedures which were not followed in 1997-98 during the last five year review of the University Librarian. Bill Maher investigated further and discovered that our Bylaws Committee did have access to this document, but suspended work on changing our
bylaws when the Provost's Office granted the Library an exception in 1997 for Bob Wedgeworth's 5 year review because, in their view, the guidelines were "not well-thought out" and they "lacked flexibility." After discussion with the Provost's office, it is clear that they intend to follow the Senate recommendations and appoint an outside full professor to
chair the committee, and may appoint other outside faculty to the evaluation committee as well. David Swanson's letter further mentions the procedure the Library faculty approved and which we followed in 1997, which has since been replaced by our motion on December 16, 2003. Once the new chair is appointed, the evaluation team will review the motion to see
if further action by the library faculty is necessary. The Executive Committee forwarded recommendations for possible chairs to David Swanson, and asked that the committee be consulted.
Tim Cole stated that at one time that language was present in the Bylaws and asked if maybe we should have the Bylaws committee check to see that the language reflects this?
Mary Stuart then asked if the Bylaws been amended. Beth Woodard answered that they had not.
Bill Maher added that one part of what was needed to implement Senate resolution was put in the Bylaws in May 17, 1997 by a Faculty vote. The other part of what was necessary to make the Bylaws consistent was what was in the Senate resolution that was never addressed by the Bylaws committee in May of ’97. Why it was not addressed, he did not know.
Tim Cole made a motion to have the Bylaws Committee investigate this.
Priscilla Yu seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion passed.
Mary Stuart asked how EC has resolved to proceed. Beth Woodard answered that it seems that there will be a Dean Evaluation Committee appointed that EC will automatically be on. EC does not yet know who all the members will be.
Mary Stuart requested a time frame. Beth Woodard answered that they’ve asked for suggestions by January 21st, 2004.
Mary Stuart asked when the evaluation due. Beth Woodard answered that the only thing we know is that it is due this semester.
Strategic Planning Committee - Schmidt, D.
Diane Schmidt reported that the Strategic Planning Committee will be holding open
brainstorming sessions during January and February to generate input on projects and priorities for
our new Strategic Plan, and strongly encouraged faculty to attend all of the sessions that are of
interest. The committee will be using input from these sessions and reports such as the
Access Task Force report and the International Strategic Plan to draft a plan. The list of reports
that the committee has identified is linked from the committee's Web page. If you see any reports
written in the last 5 years or due soon that the committee has missed please let Diane know.
The open sessions will be held from January 20-Feb. 6. At the end of each pair of sessions the committee will send out minutes combining the two sessions and will ask for further comments by February 13th. The committee will then mine the reports and comments for trends and topics and break into smaller groups to write individual sections. The committee hopes to have a draft available for comment by May 1 and a final version by August 15.
The committee is also in the process of writing an assessment of the old 5 year plan. We have asked for input from individuals in charge of portions of the old plan to send us information on activities related to goals and objectives from the plan and hope to present a final report by mid-February. This assessment will be used in our creation of a new strategic plan and will provide a useful summary of our activities over the last 5 years.
4. New Business
Kaufman - Meeting Streamlining:
The AC talked about streamlining committees and cutting down on the number of meetings. They also encouraged everyone to use e-mail instead of face to face meetings whenever possible.
They asked that this discussion be brought to the Faculty meeting because they are aware of the time spent on committee work and the stress on our time with staff numbers decreasing.
Tina Chrzastowski asked about the possibility of having fewer faculty meetings.
Beth Woodard responded that faculty meetings are already set up so that they can be cancelled if there aren’t enough agenda items.
Tom Kilton added that e-mail as a substitute for face to face discussion or phone conversation is not necessarily the answer.
Sue Searing stated that one of the problems in serving on committees is when there aren’t enough people to run your library, you can’t leave to go to a committee meeting. Committee productivity and efficiency diminishes when members aren't present or when people decline to serve on committees, undercutting the whole point of having committees.
David Giffiths commented that the Nominations, Elections and Voting Procedures Committee (NEVP) work doesn’t necessarily need to be done by Library Faculty; and could be abolished as a committee.
Tim Cole added, however, that it’s pretty typical to have faculty involvement in faculty issues.
Maria Porta agreed and stated that some of these elections are pretty important and someone needs to oversee the number of votes and maintain confidentiality.
David Griffiths responded by asking if there is any reason to believe that faculty will do a more honest job than anyone else.
Lisa Hinchliffe observed that it seems the approach taken by most committees is to petition to move to divisional representation on all committees which makes for a much larger committee.
Tim Cole asked if, as our numbers shrink, a nine division structure the right number? Maybe we need to reduce the number of divisions. He suggested that EC could look at this.
Kaufman – Scholarly Communication:
Paula reported that she was at a meeting on Friday with the Provost, Jesse Delia who is the Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, John Unsworth from GSLIS, and Pete Siegel, Chief Information Officer as a follow-up to a meeting the CIC had sponsored by LAS deans and the Provost with representation from one library director and one university press director on the issue of scholarly communication. This came out of the Modern Language Association’s report and set of recommendations about a year ago in regards to the problem of faculty in the Humanities having difficulty getting manuscripts published as books when tenure and promotion requirements are such that most institutions that require monograph publishing. The Mellon Foundation funded a study, carried out by Leigh Estabrook and the Library Research Center, of three disciplines: history, anthropology, and English, in the CIC institution. The conclusion of the study is there is no problem in the CIC with faculty finding publishers in a timely way and getting published. Other institutions may have this problem but institutions at the level of the CIC universities are not experiencing that. The discussion then evolved into one about scholarly communication. The meeting with the Provost was a follow-up to this and really took two tracks.
1. Developing communications with faculty on campus about how to manage their own copyrighted material. What faculty should do when they have an article that has been accepted by their dream publisher, what they can negotiate and what can’t be negotiated.
2. The other track was the development of a mechanism known as an Institutional Repository (IR). A small group from the Library and a small group from CITES met in mid-December to talk about issues of overlapping interests, one of which is IR. The Library already has a small group working to identify some of the basic issues that must be addressed in order to implement an IR. These issues are mostly technical in nature, though there are also issues that relate to faculty need and faculty acceptance. The present schedule is for the small group (Bill Mischo, Beth Sandore, and Mike Grady) to develop a white paper by early February. The Provost hopes to take the issue to the Research Board in late February to get faculty by-in.
CIC Library Directors are in the process of writing a letter to all faculty and all the CIC institutions along the lines of the letters the University of California librarians have sent out talking about increasing journal prices. This will probably to be followed by some other kind of letter in a few months about what you can do to reverse this trend.
John Unsworth will be talking about some of the issues at the colloquium he’s presenting in March and Paula encourages all faculty to come and see what he has to say and participate in the discussions.
Kaufman - ARL and Stanford's Withdraw:
Katie Clark asked for Stanford's reasons for withdrawing. Paula answered that the letter Michael Keller sent to ARL has not been made public, though she cited that he has not engaged in ARL activities and he doesn’t see how ARL helps Stanford in any way. He does acknowledge that ARL's lobbying efforts are helpful and that he would like to see more resources go to that rather than some of the other things in which ARL engages. He doesn’t see the benefit to his institution and clearly doesn’t see the common good purpose of ARL.
Paula added that he is positioning Stanford in the way Harvard did twenty years ago which was - “We’re Harvard and we don’t need anyone else.”< /span>
Katie Clark asked for Paula to clarify exactly what our library's benefits are for being part of ARL. Paula responded that there is a higher, common good purpose of ARL. The lobbying they do is very important. The fact that ARL has formed coalition with other organizations has really helped to keep the database bill from passing for seven years. They’ve helped with the Global Resources Program and the Interlibrary Loan Program and the analysis they have done has been very helpful. A number of their programs require additional funds and we have not participated in all of those.
Their Scholarly Communications Program has been particularly helpful to us in raising awareness of issues of scholarly communication, helping us find ways to talk to faculty, and working on the Create Change Program. We are a member of SPARC, which has been helpful in creating a culture of alternatives and awareness of some of the issues that are now imbedded in. The discussions about Elsevier and other publishers who are now carrying black marks with them came from this raised awareness. It’s helped us over-exaggerate the rhetoric we use when we talk about publishing so that we tend to sweep all publishers under this bad heading. The recent work SPARC has done on open access may not have been as helpful, but it is changing the culture and the nature of discussion, which is very healthy. For the amount of money we invest in ARL every year, it has been very helpful.
The ARL does create a sense of community among research libraries and makes it easier for some work to get done. The recent withdraw of Stanford is helping to focus discussion on what ARL should be for the future, not what it’s been for the past.
Maria Porta asked for ARL’s mission. Paula responded that their mission is to advance service to users of research libraries through collective projects and actions. It’s designed to help research libraries as a group and individual research libraries as they choose to take advantage of the programs.
Tom Kilton added that it also has had good relations with academic groups among teaching faculty like the Associated Press and the universities.
Lyn Wiley also added that it sets a wonderful standard to aspire to because there have been lots of libraries that have wanted to get there and have worked very hard in doing so which brings even more collective resources.
Paula pointed out that the idea that the more institutions you let in, the more it focuses ARL’s attention on smaller research libraries, may have been one of the reasons Stanford withdrew. This is despite the fact that to join ARL a library must show its statistics to be at the median.
Maria Porta asked how the ARL has fared, for example, on collection development collaboration. Paula answered that the ARL doesn’t operate programs. Right now its collections group is focusing on Global Resources network whose operational activities are going to be spun off into the Center for Research Libraries. Their Special Collections Task force which is a slow-moving group who are examining ways both to encourage research library directors to consider special collections an important part of their library portfolio, as well as to try to collectively find and agree on ways to reduce the huge backlogs that exist in almost every special collections library within research libraries across the country.
Priscilla Yu asked how large the ARL is. Paula responded that there are 123 member institutions, of which 8 to10 are non-university based.
The meeting ended at 3:55pm with a motion by Maria Porta, seconded by Priscilla Yu.