Wednesday, February 16, 2005
GSLIS Room 126
Refreshments at 2:30
Paula Kaufman, presiding
1. Approval of faculty meeting minutes for December 15, 2004.
Minutes were approved by a motion from Michael Norman, seconded by Mary Laskowski
2. University Librarian’s Report
Paula attended Dean’s meeting today, at which new budget estimates and process for budget notifications were discussed. Paula, Karen, and Rod are scheduled to meet with Bill Adams and a few others from the Provost office on Friday at CBOC to talk about the annual report and the Library’s budget needs. The length of the meeting is only an hour, and as the meeting used to be scheduled for an hour and a half, this might be an indication of what the budget will be like next year. There is a group doing an analysis of the budget message that the Governor delivered today. We should be receiving the analysis within the next couple of days. Best guess prior to this is that the budget will probably be flat and there will likely be no capital money. Jeff Schrader is working with Facilities and Services to verify what we might, and might not, expect to receive this year and next year. We are talking this year about a salary increase of 3% and the campus will continue to fund the promotional increases that they have always funded. We should have salary numbers and tentative budget information by early June. University administrators don’t expect the legislature will finish in a timely fashion again this year, although they think it will be a little bit earlier last year. So we expect we might get the budget letters from the Provost’s Office in early July, due back the third week of July. If we get the tentative salary figures before then, we will be able to prepare all the things for the Salary Planner program that we have to do. The Provost hopes to have salary equity money available; however, except for a list of things on the unavoidable list, (they will share the list with us at the next Dean’s meeting),they are anticipating 4% reductions. They’r e also going to permit units to reallocate 1% to add to the 3% salary money that they give us.
There was a lot of discussion at the Dean’s meeting about freshman applications. The resident applications are down 12% and this is really unusual for us. Non resident applications are down 30%, which is thought to be directly attributable to cost. Non-residential tuition is three times residential tuition ($21,000-$22,000 a year). International applications are up a bit. Overall applications are down 14%, however the quality of the applicants is up. The number of people accepting their application invitations is also up. When you look at the target by college, most colleges are not in a bad position. Clearly the Deans will be talking about the whole financial structure and what we can lay on tuition and what can’t and what we have to do to do things differently.
There was also discussion about translational research. For those not familiar with this phrase, this is really applied research. The campus has a committee that is chaired by Herb Whitley (Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine), which is looking at how we do research in a way that’s more applicable to solving some of today’s problems, whether they are in corporate settings or societal settings. The buzz word itself comes from the medical community. There was a bit of conversation about whether we should and if so, how we should improve relationships with corporations in the State. The discussion ended with the assumption that the focus shouldn’t be on the research that gets done, but rather on the strategic alliances that we make with corporations who can help us in the political process.
Under the Provost’s leadership, the Deans met in a retreat recently. President White is preparing a plan for the Board that he will give to it in July. He had given the Chancellors a few weeks to pull their plans together and that’s why the dean’s retreat was held. Some of the rhetoric was quite refreshing, in that according Interim Chancellor Herman, what Dr. White has told each Chancellor is, we’re not one university. We’re three universities and we each have our own mission and we each should aspire to be like different kinds of institutions. We’re to aspire to be like the Berkley’s and Michigan’s. UIS should aspire to be like their peer groups. Chicago should see itself as a strong metropolitan university like NYU. There now seems to be the differentiation between UIC, UIUC, and UIS.
There will be series of follow-up meetings to the retreat, each on a different topic. The first meeting will center upon shifting to an active recruitment mode in building our classes within our markets across the state and especially in Chicago and suburban counties, as well as in our national and international markets. This will represent a sharp break with past institutional culture in admissions and within most of our programs. We must therefore give careful and systematic attention to what we want our undergraduate “brand identity” to be. We need a session that digs deeper on what we want to accomplish in enhancing undergraduate education, considering what best supports our overall program and identifying educational goals that are achievable. How can we make small worlds where students connect with one another through the learning experience a part of every program? What can we achieve in research or hands on experience for all of our students?
Keith Marshall will be running the Office of Admissions and Records on an interim basis. Apparently the culture of there has not been welcoming to students and this part of an effort to try to change that.
Secondly, we need to address where we want to go in the international arena. What are we not getting done that’s important in international undergraduate education? What are our goals as well as our present and essential needs and international involvement for delivering graduate or professional education? How important will delivery of education on-site in other countries be? How important are research partnerships? How important will the availability of physical facilities in other countries be for enabling faculty to work key international partners? Who are our most important international partners?
At another meeting the deans will discuss barriers in development and alumni relations, focusing on enhancing unit connections with development and alumni affairs efforts to promote effectiveness.
The next meeting will cover the need to affirm that our driving institutional goals to be a preeminent research university. To achieve this end we must establish consistency in quality across all of our areas, understanding our need to rethink our appropriate breadth in order to ensure sufficient depth in focused areas. Given this over-arching goal, what do we need to put into place to support and strengthen our capacity for achieving programmatic focus in support quality of all levels of the campus from areas within the departments to the campus as a whole. We’ll need to lay out some specific proposed changes. Changes that introduce systematic use of external reviews, utilize campus-wide support of cluster hiring to support directional changes, and strengthen the faculty excellence program. In order to sufficiently and successfully engage President White’s declared areas of focus, which are economic development, education, and health care. We will need to initiate a broader focus at the campus level towards greater emphasis on translational research. Do we introduce a campus level focusing on greater emphasis on translational research or do we look at adaptations developed in their own course within the individual colleges and programs? We need to intersect this discussion with a more focused discussion within the Vice Chancellor for Research’s process focused on biomedical translational research. Assuming there is support for campus efforts to expand and enhance translational research, what should be the scope of the campus-wide effort? Does it include a push towards expanded research engagement with the communities? Do we introduce systematic campus support for faculty research that’s focused towards communities?
Finally, if these issues have not been sufficiently addressed in the preceding discussions, we’ll consider such traditional topics as modifying the campus budgeting framework and budget oversight process working through the development of a specific model. Some of you might recognize these themes from the Chancellor’s retreat report back in November.
1). Paula met with the GSLIS faculty, who endorsed the shared position program that the Executive Committee has endorsed. These shared positions are not formal joint appointments. They could run from a year to 3-5 depending on how they develop. EC will be developing the faculty application process.
2). ARL Leadership Fellows Program reception is from 6-8 p.m. The program will end tomorrow at noon.
Finally, there is a new approach in thinking about residence halls and the campus is thinking of creating neighborhoods rather than residential living and learning communities. It’s a different kind of concept. Paula has asked Pat Askew to sit down and explain. This idea is still in the very early stages.
3. Executive Committee Report (Bill Mischo)
The Executive Committee has met 3 times since the last faculty meeting
January 4, 2005 Meeting
Rod Allen was invited to discuss the budget process, and Rod presented EC with a number of budget documents. Factors that would affect the budget process were discussed, including the increase in minimum wage, materials inflation, stem the erosion of resources for both electronic and print materials, network upgrades, debt repayments for Oak Street and the Chemistry Library, staff upgrades and graduate assistant hours, Oak Street development, OCLC costs and revenues, and issues concerning the elimination of confusing multi-service points. The budget process is multi-faceted and there are a lot of issues involved, and the EC affirmed its role in the budget process and it’s role vis a vis the budget group
Minutes of the December 15 th meeting were approved.
The composition and appointment of the Administrative Council was discussed, and the language that would be sent to the bylaws committee regarding this issue. A recommendation was made that this language be finalized at the next EC meeting.
A question came up regarding the distribution of promotion and tenure documents and the results of promotion and tenure votes, particularly the Faculty Review Committee vote. This has been done in several manners in the past, and a decision was made to convey the FRC vote to the Promotion and Tenure committee in addition to the University Librarian’s vote.
The WAGR librarian contacted both the University Librarian and EC to talk about an alternative model to providing service in the Women and Gender Resources Library (WAGR). EC discussed the ramifications of this plan, including Cindy’s current office in WAGR and the time she would spend at the Women and Gender in Global Perspectives offices and at the Women’s Studies Program offices. Use of the current facility for WAGR was discussed and the idea was put forth that this space would be best used as conference space, and that it would not be offered to the classroom list. This would be a facility that both the Library and the Women and Gender Resources faculty and staff could use. EC emphasized the potential for enhanced services and the principal thrust for the argument was that this model would provide for enhanced services.
A peer review committee was appointed.
A project entitled “A Unified, Standards-Compliant System for Describing Archives and Manuscript Collections” made by Chris Prom was approved was ICR seed money fund. For those who might not remember, information was sent out several months ago discussing how this money is generated and how faculty might apply for it.
A discussion was initiated by Lynn Wiley regarding the changing roles of FRC and P&T in terms of peer review feedback. P&T advisory members will read the reports of candidates at OY, 1Y, 2Y, and 3Y, as opposed to FRC, who has been reading all untenured reports in the past. FRC will continue to read 4Y and 5Y reports and provide comments back to both the candidates and the peer review committees.
A discussion was continued about the role of P&T in the 3Y reviews, and P&T will read and sign off on 3Y reviews and provide assistance to the University Librarian in that process.
Three proposals concerning the future of the Newspaper Library were considered, and no action was taken as more data was requested from the writers of the three proposals.
January 24, 2005 Meeting
Minutes of the January 4 th meeting were approved.
EC discussed the Employee packet that was put together by Library Human Resources in conjunction with the appointment of John Wagstaff, the new head of the Music Library and ongoing discussions by EC on this topic.
EC considered a draft of the Budget document and made additional comments on that document.
An FRC and P&T full professor committee was appointed to review papers for the new Head of Rare Books and Special Collections. In addition, two faculty members have indicated their intent to go forward for promotion to full professor.
The CLIR fellows proposal entitled “History of American Popular Performance to 1940,” submitted by Kathleen Kluegel and Mary Stuart, was chosen to be the project for the FY06-08 CLIR postdoctoral fellow from the submitted proposals reviewed by an EC subcommittee. Three excellent proposals were submitted, and the subcommittee recommended that a template be created for the submission future proposals. EC also discussed the status of the CLIR program and the possibility of creating a mechanism to fund more than one proposal either in this current cycle or the next.
EC approved the wording for the composition of the Administrative Council that would be sent forward for Bylaws revision.
EC approved an earlier email ballot to fill a visiting position in the Business and Economics Library.
EC discussed at length and approved a proposal to fill several positions in the Law Library. These positions come with a substantive monetary commitment for funding from the Provost and the Law College. The contribution of the Library will be the smallest one under this plan. It will provide several new faculty positions in the Law Library.
EC returned to the discussion of the future of the Newspaper Library and again discussed the proposals submitted both by the CPS division and other parties. EC approved a proposal that would combine the Newspaper Library with the History and Philosophy Library and suggested the formation of an implementation/advisory group to guide the combination of these two libraries.
The University Librarian reported on the John ‘Bud’ Velde Professorship, an alumnus who left $1.3 million to the University Library and who was very interested in both preservation and rare books. The University Librarian proposed a multi-part proposal for the execution of this gift.
EC began a discussion regarding the implication of the title Assistant University Librarian.
The University Librarian noted that she has asked has asked Katie Clark to take on part of the scholarly communications duties in terms of coordination and liaison activity.
February 10, 2005
The purpose of this special meeting was to appoint peer review committees and paper preparers for the individuals seeking promotion to full professor this year.
Two candidates are seeking promotion to full professor and three to associate professor, and all required committees were appointed and the candidates have been notified.
The process for evaluating division coordinators was discussed.
The University Librarian described the development of the ARL leadership fellows program and the schedule for the upcoming year, including the meeting that is being held this week as well as the reception.
A request for rollback was approved.
EC had a lengthy discussion regarding the role of EC in advising on structural and administrative changes in the Library. This will be addressed additionally at today’s faculty meeting. The EC confirmed its role in the process much as it did in terms of the budget process.
Question regarding possible changes in “role” for division coordinators? No, process being discussed is for appointment, reappointment, and three year evaluations. This process is documented in the bylaws.
Follow-up on EC report by the University Librarian.
Paula pointed out that EC has been very busy the last month, but some questions have been raised regarding the process for the discussions that have been held regarding the WAGR Library proposal and the Newspaper Library proposal.
WAGR proposal: Cindy Ingold came to the University Librarian with the proposal and it was discussed in terms of affected departments and then with EC. Subsequently, Cindy having been encouraged by EC then went to her division to discuss this issue. Meanwhile, conversations also continued with the Women and Gender in Global Perspectives Program and the Gender Women’s Studies Program, and these conversations are still continuing.
Newspaper Library: The CPS division came forward with two proposals and at the same time Paula initiated conversations with several faculty members in the Library about different ideas for the Library that were on her mind. As a result of these conversations Mary Stuart’s proposal came forward. Several other faculty members were not interested in putting forward a proposal based upon Paula’s ideas. The EC had two long discussions about the proposal and has endorsed it.
These are the processes that have been used for these two proposals, and as EC indicated in its report to the faculty the role of EC as advisor to the University Librarian has been discussed per these proposals, and EC was consulted regarding both of these proposals and EC feels strongly that it is representative of you, the faculty.
Discussion followed in which several faculty members expressed concerning regarding the process by which proposals were accepted and discussed for both the WAGR and Newspaper Libraries. As a result of these discussions, EC will be looking at any impacts and issues that might arise related to the bylaws.
Bylaws Committee: Mary Schlembach
Continuation of discussion of Bylaws changes that began at the December 15 th faculty meeting:
Message was sent out and changes to bylaws summary is saved on the G:Drive. Under bylaws (See supplemental documents to these minutes) The Bylaws committee would like to get the remaining discussion completed today so that a ballot on these changes can be sent out.
Several changes to the bylaws were discussed in detail. However, a motion passed to send out a ballot for the faculty to vote to accept all changes in the bylaws document.
NEVP Update on Electronic Voting – Jennifer Hain Teper
The floor was opened to discussion of electronic voting to make sure that no one has any concerns before moving forward with electronic voting in terms of the bylaws.
Some concerns were expressed regarding randomization of the order of names on the ballot. Jennifer said that this feature would be incorporated into future ballots. Another concern was expressed regarding the record of results. Currently NEVP is printing and filing the results. A third concern centered upon the anonymity of the voters in tallying the results. Jennifer stated that netids do download with votes, but that the committee is making every effort to hide that information in the tabulation of results. Overall, however, electronic voting appears to be successful.
NEVP will move forward in addressing any bylaws issues related to electronic voting.
Information Literacy Update – Lisa Hinchliffe
Lisa Hinchliffe provided an update regarding activities related to Information Literacy on the campus. See supplemental documents for more detail.
4. Old Business
5. New Business
Mary Schlembach announced the acceptance of new GSLIS students who will like be looking for assistantships.
Mary Laskowski announced that the Undergraduate Library’s circulating DVD collection would fully underway in the next few days.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Wendy Shelburne, Secretary of the Faculty