Wednesday, July 26, 2006
3:00 - 4:30 pm
Lynne Rudasill presiding for Paula Kaufman
The meeting began at 3:04. The minutes were approved as submitted by a motion from Gail Hueting and seconded by Mary Laskowski. Minutes passed.
No new faculty were
There was no report as Paula was not in attendance.
Executive Committee - Lynne Rudasill provided a report to the faculty. See EC website for a
complete report. (
Tim Cole remarked that two of the position requests approved by EC were for temporary appointments. A portion of the collections budget will be used to hire staff to care for collections with a particular focus on digital collections. There is much more demand for positions than there is money, but the situation is not as dire as last year.
Lynne Rudasill thanked all of the members of the EC.
Bill Mischo was invited to the podium to talk about Linda Ackerson who had recently passed away. He said the Library had received a very nice letter from Gary thanking the faculty and staff for their support throughout Linda's illness. She was very courageous and spent most of her time at work while she was still ill. We received many letters from people around the country about Linda and particularly graduate students who worked with her. Linda's legacy lives on through them. If you want to make a contribution in her honor it can be made to Carle Hospice. Her book project was nearly complete before she passed away. Bill and Mary are working on completing this book which will represent a capstone to her career.
Lynne reminded everyone that we will adhere to the time constraints of today's agenda.
Bylaws Committee (Nancy O'Brien, Paul Healey, Bill Maher)
The April 26 Bylaws recommendation submitted by Al Kagan were taken up by the Group and the proposed changes were sent out to the faculty for review prior to this faculty meeting. Nancy reminded the faculty that these revisions represented the views of Al and did not represent the views of the Committee. She then opened the floor for discussion and said the faculty could ask to have all of the changes to be put to a ballot, some of the changes put to a ballot, individual changes put to a ballot or chose to take no action on the proposed revisions.
Kathleen Kluegel asked the faculty whether it was necessary to have a motion in order to focus the discussion. She then motioned that each issue be separately discussed and voted on. Her motion was seconded by Mary Laskowski.
Al Kagan thanked the Bylaws Committee for their work and asked the faculty to have his proposal decided by an electronic ballot.
Kathleen Kluegel reminded the faculty of the need to discuss and vote on each separate revision included in Al's Bylaw proposal.
Tim Cole reminded the faculty that all bylaws should be submitted to faculty for a vote.
Kathleen Kluegel's motion was accepted by the faculty.
The first issue related to faculty governance was brought to the floor. Bill Maher reminded the faculty of the need to get something on the record about faculty governance. However he wasn't sure of the need for such a proposal since shared faculty governance has always been at the core of how the University has operated over the years.
Al Kagan then explained that there was nothing in the Library's Bylaws that explicitly stated that the Library adhere to a system of shared governance. It was our responsibility to have such a statement in the Bylaws so new people coming in will have some sense about what we're doing in terms of governance. He said that there has been a de-emphasis of shared governance at the campus level over the past years.
Tim Cole remarked that the minutes should reflect that the educational and governance roles of the Library should be expressed through ancillary documents and not the Bylaws. Tim said that such a proposal would not produce the desired effect related to faculty governance.
Bill Mischo said we had a similar initiative in the 1980s. We spent a lot of time looking at statutes in the past. Is this proposed to the Library's Bylaws a continuation of that effort?
Al Kagan pointed out that he was not on the faculty at that time. However there is nothing about shared governance in Library's current Bylaws. The University Statutes do include such language related to shared faculty governance.
Tim Cole said that in the 1980s the University President said such a statement on governance should be included in the University's statutes rather than the Library's Bylaws. He said that it doesn't matter what we put in the Library's Bylaws because it would be trumped by University Statutes.
Bob Burger said that he was on the committee that drafted the Library's first set of Bylaws. Brevity was the guiding principle behind these bylaws and other ancillary documents could provide further explanation and interpretation of these bylaws. The committee chose not to include rules that were already included in the University's statutes.
Janice Pilch asked about the wording of the Library's original statutes and how the language of this proposal fit into these statues.
Al Kagan said that he had a copy of these statutes but there was no simple answer to this question.
Janice Pilch said that if the Library's statues obscured this governance issue then we should look at these statues.
Al Kagan remarked that a change to the Library's statues would eliminate the need to change the bylaws.
Kathleen Kluegel asked the faculty if a bylaw should refer to itself as a governing document.
Lynn Wiley proposed the Library faculty drop the term governance from the Library bylaws revision. She made a motion and Kathleen seconded it.
A vote was taken and the motion to remove the portion of the text from the proposed Library bylaws amendment passed.
Chris Prom made a motion to table the proposed changes. He said that we're replicating what was already stated clearly in the current Library Bylaws. Bill Maher seconded this motion.
Lynne Rudasill then clarified the motion.
Janice Pilch said that we don't know what the language is so we don't know if this proposal replicates what is in the University Statutes.
Chris Prom said we needed to look at the language of the University and Library statutes to better understand the discussion.
Janice Pilch said that it would premature for the faculty to make a decision about Al Kagan's proposal without this review.
Chris Prom then put the motion forward that we should table this proposal.
Janice Pilch put the question to vote on whether to table this discussion.
The question and vote passed. No further debate.
Lynne Rudasill put forward the call to table the first proposal. It passed by voice vote.
Nancy O'Brien said that because there was no more time during the meeting for further discussion of these proposals she proposed these should be brought to the next faculty meeting. She then asked for volunteers to write up rationales for these proposals in preparation for the next meeting. Send Nancy or Bill Maher any info you have.
Tim Cole made a motion to defer further discussion until the next meeting.
Maria Porta seconded this motion. The motion to defer this discussion until the next faculty meeting passed.
P&T Documentation Task Group Report (Nancy O'Brien )
Nancy O'Brien talked about the group's work to update P&T documentation. They revised three documents: Substitute Section III, Dossier Style and Citation Guidelines, and Tips for Candidates.
The group also created two new documents: Guidelines for Selection of Internal and External Reviewers, and Sample Biographical Statement.
Tim Cole remarked that only Substitute Section III required a faculty vote of approval.
Maria Porta stated that this document was a revised guideline statement from the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
Kathleen Kluegel remarked that she was on FRC regarding the revised section III. She remarked that there was a gentleman's agreement between the Provost and Library regarding the intent of this document.
Tim Cole confirmed this observation. He made a motion to adopt the revised Section III. It was seconded by Lynn Wiley and the motion passed.
Kathleen Kluegel pointed out the current P&T documentation does not refer to this Substitute Section III.
Bill Mischo said this original section came about as a result of Hugh Atkinson involvement on the campus P&T committee. It was developed to help explain librarianship to others on campus and was used in lieu of ICES scores that are typically used for other campus faculty tenure reviews.
A call to submit the question of this section was made by Kathleen Kluegel. It was passed by voice vote.
Nancy O'Brien talked about the other two documents that will help candidates better prepare the dossiers.
Cherié Weible pointed out that there was a change in the guidelines for grant citations that was included in Provost Communication 9.
Bob Burger suggested FRC look at Communication 9 regarding when the names of external reviewers should and should not be cited in tenure and promotion applications.
Tim Cole thanked Nancy's group for their hard work.
Mary Laskowski asked if someone from PRC could serve as an external reviewer.
Bob Burger clarified that members of an individual's peer review committee could not serve as an internal reviewer.
Maria Porta asked if someone who had once served on an individual's peer review committee and then stepped off the committee, could they serve as an internal reviewer.
Nancy O'Brien said this was possible but it was discouraged.
Tim Cole pointed out these are just guidelines.
KC Coe followed up on Cherié's comment regarding the examples that were included in these guidelines. She suggested that for people going up for tenure there should be an electronic forum to help them through the process.
Nancy remarked about the sample biographical statements. She said that individuals don't need a statement as extensive as the one she provide in her examples.
Kathleen Kluegel said these biographical statements helped Paula provide evidence to UI administration in support of a particular reviewer.
Special P&T Committee Chair Report (Tim Cole )
Tim Cole introduced his report and said the faculty would have to discuss it in greater detail at a future meeting. This report identified changes that the faculty need to consider regarding the University's P&T evaluation.
The issues were as follows:
1) Including internal letters with dossiers we send down the street
2) Sending candidate statement on research goals & objectives with letters requesting outside review of candidate's research and service
3) Improving the way we describe the impact and importance of Library faculty research and professional service we do-drawing the line more directly between our research and the quality of library service we provide faculty and students.
4) Developing targeted training for paper preparers so that they better know what's expected of their dossiers at the Library and Campus levels.
5) Doing a more complete survey of what's done at our peer institutions in order to provide both us (the Library) and the Campus a better context for understanding where we stand in relation to other library faculties and how we should evaluate Library faculty here.
Tim Cole proposed that these topics should be discussed along with any additional ideas the faculty might have at a future Library faculty meeting, or perhaps more appropriately during a separate Forum on the topic to be held sometime before the end of the calendar year.
There was some brief discussion of whether the Library was again having increased difficulty getting our P&T cases through the Campus Committee. Tim confirmed that Paula had indicated to him an increase in the number and extent of questions she was being ask to respond to regarding our P&T cases. So our desire to discuss this issue with Watkins and our interest in further faculty discussion was in part an attempt to be proactive and stay ahead of the curve on this issue.
Gail Hueting asked Tim if he was doing literature research on these topics by asking peer institutions for their guidelines on P&T.
Tim Cole and Bob Burger said yes.
Kathleen Kluegel said that once again the University was questioning the scholarship done by the University's librarians.
Tim Cole said Ruth Watkins and the Provost were not challenging our librarianship. Paula was the one who suggested we focus on these issues.
It was determined that a forum would be presented later in the year.
FRC Committee Report (Barb Henigman )
FRC met with the Executive Committee in May to talk about the Annual Report process. Some of the goals that came out of that discussion were:
1. Revise reporting process by considering the relationship between faculty performance outcomes and the Library's strategic plan.
2. Help untenured faculty by not asking them to write two documents - dossier and annual report
These changes would not take effect until the 2007 reporting year.
It was suggested that the committee come up with "tips for writing an annual report" and "tips for writing a dossier" guidelines. FRC would like to know what kind of feedback would be expected from the faculty.
Bill Mischo thought this was a good idea because it helped Associate Professors create their dossiers and put them in a better position for going up for full professor.
Library Web Content Group (Lynne M. Rudasill
)The url for the websites are
<http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/web_designs/25c1optional.htm> and <http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/web_designs/18m1optional.htm>.
Lynne asked the faculty to take a look at these sites and tell her what you like and/or dislike about them. Remember, the pages are prototypes and do not link to actual resources. If you have suggestions for wording, navigation or other aspects of the pages, please don't hesitate toshare them.
For guidelines for the new home page go to <http://www.library.uiuc.edu/rex/wcg.
Bob Burger announced Emily Love as the new Outreach Librarian for Multi-Cultural Services. She will be joining us in August.