Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

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

Library Faculty Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

3:00 - 4:30 pm

GSLIS Room 126

 

Paula Kaufman, presiding

 

 

Motion to accept by Lisa Hinchliffe and seconded by Lynne Rudasill.  No changes.  The minutes passed.

 

 

No new people were introduced.

 

 

Gene Rinkel agreed to serve as Parliamentarian for the meeting.

 

This week is Sunshine Week.  Paula thanked Mary Mallory and Al Kagan for arranging the teleconference on Monday, titled Are We Safer in the Dark?

 

Paula thanked the Research and Publication Committee for arranging the celebration of Library research and the presentations given by Jane Block, JoAnn Jacoby, and Chris Prom. It was a great success and she hoped to make it an annual event.

 

Paula thanked Lisa Hinchliffe for her presentation given at the GSLIS showcase for the Library on Friday, March 10, 2006.

 

On Monday and Tuesday, March 13 and 14, Rick Prelinger from the Open Content Alliance (OCA) was here to talk about the Library becoming a contributor.  The Library is looking at a number of options and ways to become allies with OCA. The purpose of this alliance is to make public domain material from the Library's collections available for everyone in digital form. The Library has much to offer OCA in terms of content and tool development. 

 

During the Council of Deans Meeting, Hill and Knowlton, a communications consulting firm, gave a presentation on how the University presents itself and its research strengths to corporations. The report indicated that there was much room for improvement. This was lengthy presentation and set of recommendations on how the campus can speak with a more consistent and persuasive voice nationally and internationally. Paula expected to receive electronically a copy of this presentation.

 

There was also an interesting presentation from Mike Bass, UI Business and Financial Services, and Phil Abruzzi, UI Chief Procurement Officer, on the implementation of a new E-Procurement System to help with the purchase of commonly acquired office supplies. The planned system will be much easier to use and will save the UI money. All products will be offered at a competitive rate.

 

Paula reported on the upcoming budget and that the University could expect to receive a one-percent increase in state funds, but it was not clear how much tuition will increase. Because freshman will be asked to pay more for their four years and there will be more of them coming in this fall than seniors leaving this spring, there may be some additional money for non-recurring expenses. Also there is $30 million in additional costs that will have to be covered by the upcoming budget which includes a salary package and commitments to network upgrades, faculty excellence and deferred maintenance in the Library. Delia steps down as acting Provost on April 1, but he will become the Executive Director of International research operations for the UI. He will be headquartered in Chip Zukoski's office. Delia will work on things related to the University's International Programs until the new Director of International Programs starts in January 2007. Linda Katehi will start April 1 and has done some reorganization in the Provost's office. She has elevated Ruth Watkins to the role of Vice Provost. This is good for all of us because Ruth will take care of the routine duties of the Provost's Office. Linda will start her time here by meeting each Dean along with Jesse Delia so she can get a fuller picture of how each of the units fits into the University, and will focus her attention on dealing with bigger campus issues.

 

FRC met yesterday. The chair position will be split between Maria Porta (spring) with Mary Schlembach assisting her and Barb Henigman with Jo Kibbee assisting her in the fall. Paula thanked all for taking this leadership role.

 

Executive Committee -
Lynne Rudasill and Paula Kaufman (L&P)

Full content of the minutes are available to everyone on-line at
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/committee/exec.

Maria questioned the reason for the change of name of the Illinois Historical Survey and
asked if we could change it since it's a survey. L&P said it was not a survey in
the same sense as other surveys and because of this the Library was able to justify this name
change.

Over the last few months EC has received a number of reports and recommendations. It is EC's
role to put these together and to feed them into the strategic planning process. This helps drive
the direction taken by the Library as it moves into the future.

Regarding the moratorium on filling position requests the EC will need to finish its work
putting the various pieces of this strategic puzzle together by the end of the academic year (May
12). Once this is done EC will ask Library faculty, units and/or divisions to submit to them by
June 1 any requests for new professional positions. An announcement will go out with these
deadlines. EC would like everyone to think broadly about how the Library should spend its money.
Clearly it should be spent on strategic priorities of the Library. We need to be creative as we
think about how the Library fills these strategic priorities and position requests. EC will look at
all position requests, put them in priority order and see how much money there is to fill them. EC
really wants to hear from the faculty and what they like or don't like about any of the proposals
they are reviewing. EC will use these comments as a basis for their discussions in their next
series of meetings that will begin in April.

Pat Allen asked what specific feedback Paula and the EC are seeking from the group. Paula
explained that there were many reports that related directly to the Library and they want to hear
where the Library faculty feels we should be putting our resources. Pat asked if the Library was
viewed by the University Deans and Units as a service unit or a "common good." Paula said some
units look at the Library as a critical component of their programs and other units see us
otherwise. We are seen by many of the colleges as an integral component of their programs. It
really is dependent on the unit.

John Unsworth, Dean, Graduate School for Library and Information Sciences remarked that Paula's
description was accurate.

Paula said the College of Business has the most difficulty seeing how the library fits within its
program. There currently is so much flux in the deanships of the University it is hard to give
more specifics about other units.

Lisa Hinchliffe said that many in the Library don't see change occurring without
some sort of physical remodeling within the Main Library, change is related most often to changes
of physical space within the Library. There needs to be a focus on the user and how their use of
the Library evolves over time. We need to look at users first and less at physical space.

Bob Burger said that several reports take the assumption that a new service model is needed
for change to occur. He sees it as an evolving process rather than a sudden physical change. The
learning commons could serve as a good test case for this type of change.

Tim Cole said the reports highlight a reduction of service access points and unit
distinctions. Combining units to move things forward is what he sees as the model that's being
suggested for change within the Library, but asked if this was how we want to move philosophically
as well as physically.

Janice Johnston remarked that we need some level of consensus for these new models before we
move ahead. Without consensus it will be difficult to raise money for these suggested physical
changes. The proposals that are being considered offered many new interesting ways to think about
how the Library provides service to our users.

Paula asked what others thought about a change in our service philosophy.

Maria Porta thought it was a good idea to rethink our service philosophies. It is very
important that we simplify how we serve our users and make it easier for the users to understand
how to access what they need.

Kathleen Kluegel asked which report Maria was endorsing.

Maria said all of the reports. It isn't important to know the individual libraries and
librarians in order to know what the user wants to use.

Jane Block pointed out it isn't a controversial model. Several library units are already
utilizing this combined resource philosophy, such as WAGER, Biotechnology, and History and
Philosophy with Newspaper. The future combinations will be made based on good sense and the users'
needs. We're already doing it and we should endorse this service philosophy.

Sue Searing said that most of this philosophical thinking is focused on the Main Library Building.
What happens to the small libraries outside the Main Library. She thought the most
important report is the one related to the remodeling of our virtual presence. The one thing we can
do without remodeling the building is to redo the web pages and our virtual presence.

Paula reminded people that similar changes were developed for the Physics Library. Tina's
newly renovated space also is tied to a similar model. These ideas may not appear in these reports,
but they are being addressed and considered.

Gail Hueting said that she was very interested in how the reports' recommendations will
affect the physical space for the cataloging department.

Mary Stuart commented that based on her work with the History, Philosophy Newspaper Library,
since they opened up their new doors, the place has been packed. There is a need for space in the
Library for users. The Scholarly Commons and Learning Commons could meet those needs.

Shannon Malcolm said that there is an undercurrent of territoriality. He would like to see us
explore the possibility of user portals for interdisciplinary research without having to worry
about the various points of physical contact.

Lisa Hinchliffe clarified her point that new space is still very important to the entire
library. We have to be open to new thoughts. For those things that we can't do tomorrow, how do we
start thinking about these changes to help prepare us for physical changes that could happen in the
future.

Nancy O'Brien returned the discussion to the territorial issue raised by Shannon. She said that in
her library she has seen diverse subject specialists come together for the betterment of her unit.

Pat Allen asked what will the day in the life of the librarian be in the Learning Commons or Scholarly
Commons? Is it going to be better for us? How will personal contact be achieved? How will we keep in
contact with our users?

Nancy O'Brien said the Scholarly Commons proposal was very appealing with its creative access
ideas, but there was little explanation as to how the existing reference staff would be integrated
into this Commons. How will subject librarians be incorporated?

Lisa Hinchliffe said it was good to have this type of discussion. However such a response to
these reports is not a nimble way to address user needs. It's not about physical space but rather
how to nimbly address changes of user needs over shorter periods of time. How do we develop a
service model that can respond to the changing needs of our users? How do we respond to those new
areas?

Kathleen Kluegel said she liked Lisa's reference to the concept of a life-cycle for
departments. This is the flip side of interdisciplinarity.

Chris Prom said his division endorsed the special collections wing identified in the Shepley,
Bulfinch report and its relationship to the Scholarly Commons. The Division felt it would bring in
more users, but they also felt a more in-depth look needs to be made to make sure the space is
sufficient.

Mary Laskowski asked what would be the next steps if the Library moved ahead with the
recommendations in the Shepley, Bulfinch (SB) report.

Paula said that it would be about a quarter to half billion dollars to follow though with the
SB report. We will need to work in small steps. We will have to work carefully with financial
donors to help shape things and it will take many years to move us forward. However if we don't
start the process it won't move ahead.

Bob Burger said it is easier to readjust library expertise to meet user needs than adjust
physical space. One of the Library's biggest advantages is the expertise of its faculty and its
collections.

Muhammad al-Faruque remarked that we need to draw the line as to how much we can generalize
between different units. We are losing the traditional distinctions and diversity between our units
and need to emphasize importance of retaining subject specializations for our units.

Karen Schmidt commented on the idea of keeping the Library flexible and nimble. However, it
is difficult to move away from a traditional collection development model in order to remain
nimble. Our money is tied up in a structure that reflects a Library from long ago.

Sue Searing reinforced Bob's idea that there are many Librarians with extensive subject
expertise but also many of our staff have similar subject expertise and we don't want to forget
this.

Tim Cole asked how we see our University leadership reshaping our future needs for the
Library in the Campus Strategic Plan, and to what degree will Librarians help shape the direction
of the future models considered for the Library?

John Wagstaff said that it is important to think strategically but in the end we want to make
the library as simple to use as possible. We have to remember that while we have 10
million books, only 6 million are cataloged. We need to think of this point as we discuss access
for our users.

Jo Kibbee said it is critical to think about the dilemma between functional and subject
expertise as we rethink our service model. We need people who can pick up new skills when their old
skills are no longer needed. Functional expertise may be more important than subject
expertise.

Maria Porta commented that she has acquired a lot of expertise as have others who have been
at the Library for many years. When these people retire who will pick up the things they are
doing?

Paula concluded the discussion and asked everyone to send their thoughts regarding these
reports to any EC member.

 

User Education Committee's Graduate Student Information Literacy Needs Assessment - Lisa Hinchliffe

 

Lisa announced a new working group of the User Education Committee. Many of the Committee's discussions in the past few years have been about looking at the undergraduates' information literacy and looking at faculty partnerships to serve those undergraduate students. We have a fair number of graduate and professional students on our campus. We have not been completely ignoring them and many library faculty do many sessions each year with them. The Committee wants to look at what it means for graduate students to be information literate. Is it made more complex by the fact that they not only have a "learner role" on campus but also have an instructional role because they often teach undergraduate students? They are also beginning their careers as scholarly researchers.

 

The working group will first begin their work with a user education needs assessment. If you are interested in joining this group please let Lisa know. The group wants to get a sense of both student and faculty needs. They also want to connect better to the Graduate School. We also need to focus on graduate and professional student needs, but recognize that their needs are distinctly different. The Committee will be engaged in a variety of tasks over the next several months. This group is willing to meet with various units within the Library to get a better sense of their views. If you'd like Lisa or another member of the committee to come to a division or unit meeting please let her know.

 

 

NEVP - Jennifer Teper: New additions to the NEVP guidelines

 

NEVP has revised some of its guidelines. You can find the updated guidelines at http://www.library.uiuc.edu/committee/NEVP/NEVPGuidelines-1.doc. The following language was added: Faculty will be given an opportunity to remove themselves from the election before formal voting begins. Faculty who do not whish to be elected to an office are responsible for removing themselves before the ballot is released. Thereafter, all election results are binding. This will simplify things.

 

Lura asked how much time will be given to faculty to remove themselves from a ballot. Jennifer said 2 weeks and people can still ask not to be elected if they forget to remove their name.

 

Content Access Policy and Technology [CAPT] Update - Beth Sandore and Karen Schmidt:  

 

Karen provided a power point presentation on CAPT to update faculty on what the group has been doing over the past several months. The committee is a blended family of librarians. The group meets once a month. They are currently working on identifying the different information access tools that are used in the Library. They will focus on how to keep these access points easy to use. These access points are constantly growing. 

 

Bill Mischo briefly remarked that the systems used by Feds has had a checkered past. They did some user feedback studies on a system developed in-house and the results were very positive. Something will be available to the public during the first summer session. Lisa Hinchliffe also said there have been several diverse subject-based portals to information resources.

 

 

None

 

 

Karen reminded people about the 3 candidates for the AUL for Services that will be interviewed in April and May. 

 

 

 

Sue Searing encouraged people to join the Edible Books event. Go home and cook up a great book for the April 3 event

 

Paula Kaufman reminded everyone about the CARLI pre-conference to IACRL in Bloomington on March 29.