Library Faculty Meeting
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
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 Oct. 21, 2003
Minutes were approved by a motion by Al Kagan and a second by Tina Chrzastowski.
2. University Librarian's report - Kaufman
Paula announced that the Provost gave the Library $125,000 one-time money to extend library hours and to help with Oak Street.
The budget process has started. The Divisions have submitted documents and Administrative Council (AC) and Executive Council (EC) will meet on Thursday to talk about the documents and discuss priorities. They will then send those to the Budget Group. The Library has received instructions from the Campus about submitting budget information and it is very similar to last year’s instructions.
Last Wednesday the Stukels hosted the Trustees in the Main Library. Some Trustees and University Administrators toured the stacks, Rare Book and Special Collections Library, and the Newspaper Library, many of whom had never been in the Main Library. Dinner was hosted in the Newspaper Library. The occasion gave Paula an opportunity to talk to them about some of the Library needs.
Paula offered brief updates on Oak Street and the Director of Facilities positions: the structural steel is going up at the Oak Street site and they are on schedule, and starting tomorrow the interviews for Director of Facilities will begin. Paula asked that faculty participate as much as possible.
Lastly, Paula added that a group of GSLIS students acted as reporters at the Conference on the Future of the Library. The combined documents should be ready by next week and will go up on the web. There will be an announcement when they are ready. At the December Faculty Meeting Paula would like to talk about the Conference and the ideas it sparked. The Long-range Advisory Committee had a brief discussion and will wait for the notes to come out before making any recommendations.
3. Committee reports
Executive Committee – Woodard
Since the last faculty meeting on October 21st, the Library Executive Committee has met three times—twice as normally scheduled on Monday, October 27th and Thursday, November 13, and once on Wednesday, November 12 without Paula Kaufman, to discuss the process for the 5 year evaluation of the University Librarian.
Paula announced that the Provost was giving the Library $125,000 in one time money in order to expand library hours.
Pending personnel changes were discussed, and implications of those changes on their units were addressed. Appointments were made to Peer Review Committees as a result of some of those changes.
The Trustees met for a dinner in the Library, and Paula noted that they commented that the learned a lot more about the collection at the event.
EC reviewed its "To Do List," and removed the honorary degree nomination from the list, since Lynne Rudasill volunteered to draft it.
Strategic Planning Committee Charge
EC reviewed the proposed charge, and after discussion, decided to send the charge back to the committee with questions about how the committee proposes to handle measurement and evaluation.
Global Resource Position Review. The position will be posted with EC serving as a review committee. Individuals interested should address the impact on his or her unit, and if not the unit head, should include an indication that the unit head has been consulted.
EC continued its discussion of the eighteen faculty positions requests, which was the exclusive agenda item at the October 27th meeting.
University Librarian Evaluation
In regard to the five year evaluation of the University Librarian, the Executive Committee gave approval to the vice-chair to examine documents relating to past evaluations in the University Archives in order to determine process followed in the past. The vice-chair also spoke to the faculty member who chaired the group doing the last five-year evaluation.
The vice-chair has contacted OIR to get the list of survey questions for Deans and the chair of the Senate Library Committee to schedule a joint meeting with the Senate Library Committee. The Executive Committee has asked Paula to complete a self-evaluation by January 15. A formal proposal detailing the evaluation process will be brought to the Library faculty at the December 16th meeting.
Paula Watson asked for further explanation of the Global Resources Librarian position. Karen Schmidt replied that the approved Title VI project has a funded librarian position as a component. The half-time position is partially funded for three years and will involve the development of a virtual library in support of the development of the Center for Global Resources, as well as in support of curricula from the departments that interact with the Center. The position will also act as liaison with the web manager, technical personnel, and other librarians.
4. Other reports
Challenge to Elsevier – Schmidt, K.
Karen had sent out a notice that The University of California (UC) had sent to their Academic Senate regarding resolution on ties with Elsevier Journals. She was asked by some members of the Library faculty to explore if the faculty wanted to push a similar resolution forward to the Senate Committee on the Library or if there were other thoughts. UC Santa Cruz is currently asking their faculty not to serve on editorial boards or publish in Elsevier journals. Karen did point out that right now we have a strong three-year agreement with Elsevier. She asked if the faculty supported going ahead with such a resolution, and if so, how the Library should go about doing it.
Maria Porta asked about cancellations through other vendors, but Karen clarified that the discussion was not necessarily about cancellations.
Tina Chrzastowski asked what the contract length and time frame for the Elsevier contract was. Karen answered that it is three years and added that although we are tied as far as cancellations for the next three years, the proposal is for us to urge our teaching faculty to say they do not like they was Elsevier is treating our research.
Lisa Hinchliffe asked if we first need to come to terms with what we are publishing in and what boards we are sitting on before we ask the other faculty to stop doing this? We also need to look at how our untenured faculty might be penalized for not publishing in those journals. Karen responded as an aside that the Provost has been seeking a lot of input on how the promotions and tenure process might change to reflect a lot more electronic publishing, and that this may be a part of that input.
Paula Kaufman added that there are a couple of strategies the Library can take. One of the strategies the University of California librarians have taken as a group is to write to all the faculty on all the campuses saying that they are negotiating with Elsevier and other publishers as well. Some of these negotiations may not come out alright and the faculty will need to know that, in terms of what’s going to be available on campus and what outlets there may be for their faculty to publish in. They asked that when their faculty are thinking about where to place their articles that they remember that the Library can’t afford some of those journals. Cornell has just walked away from a blanket deal with Elsevier and posted a message on their website.
Muhammad al-Faruque asked if there are any legal implications if the Library asked faculty not to publish? Karen Schmidt responded that this is an issue of academic freedom, but that Legal Council would likely review this as well if the Library went forward.
Melody Allison stated that she had sent the information from UC to the School of Life Sciences faculty. This was a starting point to let them know the Library's situation with Elsevier and see where they stand. In the end, the Library is going to have to respond to what the faculty see as their needs. Another thing we need to do is identify how important the teaching faculty think their contributions to the Elsevier journals are.
Tim Cole expressed concern about the degree to which we want to broad-brush this situation. The Library does not want to be pushed to treat all journals the same because they aren’t. We don’t want to let Elsevier get away with thinking they have all the same quality journals. We need to get away from these package deals, and let our faculty know that not all Elsevier journals are good journals.
Al Kagan responded that we, as librarians, have strength in numbers. If something could be decided at ALA, it could make a difference. We could take a leadership role by taking our ideas to the Senate on the Library Committee and then take it to ALA and go further.
Priscilla Yu added that we need to make sure faculty know about the price increases we’re faced with. The senate is becoming more aware of the situation, but we need to keep them up to date. We also need to let them know that it’s not just UIUC, but everywhere, and not just sciences, but humanities and social sciences as well. She also offered to bring the topic forward to the Senate Executive Committee.
Tom Weisinger pointed out that based on the recent
"Conference on the Future of the Library", the Long-Range Advisory Committee might be the best
to make the recommendation and then we could get behind them.
Priscilla Yu again offered to discuss it with the Senate Executive Committee and find out their viewpoint.
Tina Chrzastowski pointed out that the Library might want to do some more data collection before going further to the teaching faculty. We could pull together local journal publication reports to see who publishes in these journals as well as interlibrary loan data on use and value before we take the next step.
Al Kagan said that before this idea goes out of the Library we need to have something clear in mind. It should start with EC then go to the Senate on the Library Committee and then to the Senate. Paula replied that a couple of years ago the Senate Committee on the Library forwarded a resolution to the Senate suggesting where faculty should publish. It was approved and then went nowhere. So we need to be prepared for that happening again.
Maria Porta felt that the Library needs to look at the impact of buying the packaged deals on the rest of the collection.
Diane Schmidt added that she has been canceling journals since she started. While she is not a fan of Elsevier and neither is the Life Sciences faculty, Elsevier is simply the easiest target right now. She added that there are no 'good guys' out there.
Priscilla Yu clarified that she had only offered to go to the Senate Executive Committee because she thought this was a timely matter, since the Senate does not meet until January.
Lisa Hinchliffe asked that the Library clarify what we would be asking the Senate to say. Is this sort of statement more of a tool to get a good deal? What do we want our faculty to do? What sort of implications would such a decision have on our faculty?
Sue Searing added that Elsevier is not such a bad guy in regard to LIS journals. MCB is the bad guy right now, but in two years that might change.
Al Kagan pointed out that the Library can approach this on two different levels: a local level and a national level. We’ve got ALA which could speak at a national level.
Diane Schmidt asked what our point is? If we are just shaking a finger at Elsevier, it hasn’t done any good so far.
Karen Schmidt asked if, as a group, do we need to push this? We can talk to our faculty about this, as well as aggregate some data about everyone not just Elsevier.
Paula Kaufman added that we need to be careful about the language we use. Not all of them are necessarily evil and the Library could really limit itself with this. We have to offer alternatives.
Muhammad al-Faruque offered that one strategy is to spread the word - the overall picture is not clear to everybody.
Tim Cole also offered that we need to educate the teaching faculty that these are businesses using business strategies not academic strategies. Faculty need to be aware that having more journals in a given area is not necessarily better. We need to keep the key, good journals and let the bad ones go.
Jane Block continued that some of the faculty editors don’t know what the journals cost the Library and don’t care because of the money they are making in their positions as editors of these journals.
Lisa Hinchliffe added that maybe we could push for other things like retaining copyrights? There are a lot of issues to talk about.
This issue will be put on the agenda of another Faculty meeting.
Technical Services Division Report – German
So many activities are happening in the Technical Services Division, I barely know where to begin. Please know that everything we do is geared to providing users better access to the materials that we own or license and to providing us with as complete a financial picture as possible (given the limitations of our system.)
The Voyager Acquisitions implementation continues. We’ve begun systematic claiming of monographs on Voyager now; that is our latest activity. We still have about 4,000 serial orders in III that are not in Voyager. We are working through the Ebsco titles first. It’s a very long, tedious, manual, time consuming process because all need to be connected to the correct bibliographic record and if one is not there, we must create it, either by downloading it from OCLC or by creating a new one. Maria is valiantly leading this project with assistance from our GAs, Mike Soule in Chemistry, Michael, Wendy, and some of our staff.
Closely related to this activity is the Promptcat implementation. This is a method by which we receive a file of bibliographic records from OCLC at the same time as we receive the books we order from Blackwells. Naun and Barb Henigman have been working closely with OCLC and Blackwells on this project.
Related to this (it seems like so many things are interconnected), we are moving towards using Blackwells Collection Manager (their web-based system) for ordering so that our on collection managers can order themselves. Naun and Junghae Lee have been working with Beth Trotter on this effort.
Additionally, we have more Requests for Proposal to write this year and we need to finish re-profiling the Approval Plan. Many thanks to Mary Beth Allen, Nelly Gonzalez, Kathleen Kluegel, Maria Porta, Linda Ackerson, Lynne Rudasill and Kathy Bush for their work on this effort. We’ve been meeting regularly on Mondays throughout the semester.
On to another topic, the Library will be moving towards the implementation of the 22 nd version of Dewey. We are ordering several copies of the print version and also Web Dewey. The CPC will be coordinating the training as we implement this new version.
Michael and Wendy will be speaking at the Serials/E-resources Forum this Thursday from 1:30-3:30 in 126 GSLIS. I would like to encourage you to attend. They have been busily working with John Weible and Beth Woodard, the co-chairs of the TDNet implementation team and John will be giving a TDNet update and Michael and Wendy will talk about Serials and Electronic Resources issues.
Although their units are not in our Division but in Administration, they are as faculty members, and we would like to congratulate Jennifer and Tom on the great work they’re doing on Preservation and Conservation. They have enhanced our awareness of this very important part of librarianship and their initiatives are being seen in all parts of the library.
Finally, the Division would like to convey our appreciation to Barbara Henigman for the wonderful work that she has done over the years in Technical Services. Barb will become the Head of Tech Services in the Law Library beginning January 1 st. The Division will be making an interim staffing proposal to the Executive Committee at its next meeting.
The motion was made by Tina Chrzastowski to adjourn the meeting at 4:02pm.