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

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

2:30-5:00 pm

Levis Third Floor

Refreshments at 2:30

Paula Kaufman, presiding

1. Approval of faculty meeting minutes of March 16th, 2005

Minutes of the meeting of March 16th, 2005 were approved.


2. University Librarian's Report

At the recent Dean’s meeting the upcoming Campus Charitable Fund Drive was discussed. The drive will launch in September.  The goal this year is to increase contributions by 10% from last year.   Most of this money does go to local charities.  There are plans to have a web-based form available this year for donations.

Newly-appointed Chancellor Herman reiterated the campus goal >to be number one.  The campus has recently contracted with a >Washington-based research group headed by Eric Block.  The draft report of this group compares us to other institutions in terms of funded research (the library will receive a copy of this report).  We were compared with Penn State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the University of California at Berkeley.  We have the smallest amount of research and development funding of the group, heavy reliance on foreign students, and research and development in engineering is not growing at all.   We also have a heavy concentration on National Science Foundation funding most of which supports NCSA.   Penn State is leading the way in corporate funding.   This report is leading the campus to ask the question of where we should be focusing our investments and efforts.

Jesse Delia led the first in a series of discussions on >budget and planning.   The prediction at this point is that we will have a flat budget in FY06.  New expenses for FY06 include: base salary program, recruitment and retention, Facilities maintenance, Facilities new areas, restoring the core, student aid, presidential award programs, and unavoidable such as workman’s compensation and Medicare.  Tuition and assessment dollars will be used to cover most of this.  It is likely that individual units will be allocated money for the salary program, including ½% for recruitment and retention, equity, compression, etc.

Paula and Rod attended a post-budget hearing where the Library was commended for thinking in new ways and exploring new models via the annual report to the campus.

Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott (SBRA) architect’s meeting:  The study of the Main Building will take 4 months beginning in May.  The purpose of the study is to provide a strategic plan on the role and use of the Main Library building.  They will be back May 11th and 12, and then will be back again during the summer.   A summary of the open session that was held here will be sent out.

ARL Statistics:  The University of Toronto is now only 160,000 volumes behind us in volumes held rankings.  We need to find other ways to describe our greatness.

Budget information:  In continuing budget discussions the Campus is still envisioning that the Library will be “protected,”however at this point there has been no definition of what that term specifically means.  The Library receives no tuition dollars so we will continue to need to look for new ways to find money.


3. Committee reports


Executive Committee (Bill Mischo)


Executive Committee’s page:


The Executive Committee met on March 28 and April 11, 2005.


Discussions of several issues spanned over both of the EC meetings.


While the Acting Provost is supportive of the need for the second phase of the Oak Street facility, there is, at present, no written commitment for the funding of phase two.


The UL requested advice from the EC regarding the UL’s concerns over the disposition of the Digital Reference Librarian search. After a discussion of the concerns and issues and after receiving explanatory documentation from the Reference Department, the EC recommended to the UL that the search be cancelled.


The EC considered two requests for rollbacks from untenured faculty.


The UL reported that a spousal hire had been approved for a position to be split between Technical Services and the Systems department.


Several discussions were held regarding the format of the faculty discussions of the Budget Implementation Task Force document.


The Budget Group charged the EC with preparing a document that articulates the differences between Academic Professional, LTS/LOA, and Faculty positions. This document was prepared by Kathleen Kluegel and was discussed and modified by the EC.


The use of the title Assistant University Librarian was discussed. The UL requested that a subgroup of the EC examine the titles given to heads of units in the Library and other librarians in relation to the campus practice on titles of faculty and administrators.


The UL initiated a discussion of Area Studies and reported on issues discussed at a recent ARL Global Studies Conference. This discussion will be ongoing and will solicit input from the Library faculty.


The AUL for Collections met with the EC to discuss issues connected with fund allocation and budget allocation decision-making. The role of the Collection Development Committee vis-Ã -vis fund allocation was discussed.


Discussion during the EC report centered upon continued concern related to communication from EC, cancellation of the reference search, distribution of documents crafted by EC, and continued discussion about the Area Studies Division. 


Budget Implementation Task Force Report (BITF)


21 Responses to Paula's call to the faculty regarding the document were received.  Discussion of the document centered upon the lack of budgetary information (savings), initiatives that were listed that had already been completed, and the relationship between some recommendations that were ranked both high an low.  Paula suggested that a forum be held in the future to discuss the BITF’s document and recommendations in greater detail.   Responses ranked highest and lowest per the call to the faculty are at the end of this document.


4. Old business


5. New business


Faculty Governance (Al Kagan)


Al reported to the faculty at the meeting regarding campus statues governing executive committees and their intended roles related to faculty governance.  The campus definition was then discussed with relation to the current role and activities of the Library’s executive committee.  Specific concerns were raised related to confidentiality documents relative to EC activities and the activities of EC appointed task forces. 


ARL Assessment Visit and Evidence-Based Decision Making Workshop (Paula Kaufman and Bob Burger)


Bob reported on ARL’s upcoming workshop at Levis Faculty Center.  The workshop centers upon building a culture of assessment and will take place over two days (May 23 and May 24)


6. Announcements


Respectfully Submitted,

Wendy Shelburne

Secretary of the Faculty 


Budget Implementation Task Force Recommendations as Ranked per the call to theFaculty


5 Most Important in Descending order:


Technical Services 3: The Library should charge a small group of faculty and staff from public services and technical services to examine how to improve technical services quality control, streamline processing, eliminate duplicative efforts, automate statistics keeping, and improve services to users by assigning alternative tasks to staff in technical services and departmental library units.


Services: Reference 1: 1.     Appoint a task force to examine the mission, role, presence, and collection policies of central reference and undergraduate services, as well as their relationship to reference services offered throughout the Libraries, and deliver to the University Librarian a set of recommendations to determine how they can best support the majority of our Library users and the librarians who serve them.  


Services: Units 6: Working with the architect chosen for the Main Library preplanning study, develop the concept of reductions in service points to reduce confusion and improve service in the building.


Services: Financial Considerations 2:        Continue to advocate with University administrators for additional resources for the Library.


Services: Electronic Resources and IT 1:Focus on integrating and improving interoperability of electronic resources.


5 Least Important in Descending Order:


1. Services; Technical services 2: 2.The Library should  charge a small group, with representatives from technical services and public services units, to examine the desirability and feasibility of moving from Dewey to LC classification


2. Services: Teams/Staff 2: Develop a team to retrieve materials from departmental libraries when they are closed.


3. Services: Scholarly Communication 1: The Library should allocate resources to develop and maintain a web site and to reallocate a portion of a Library Faculty member’s time to work on scholarly communications issues.


4. Services: Team/Staff 1: At least one more interdepartmental staff team should be created to provide emergency short-term coverage to public service units and to carry out call-slip activities in the Main Library.


5. Services: Team Staff 3: Appoint a full-time training coordinator