Library Faculty Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
3:00 – 4:30 pm
GSLIS Room 126
Karen Schmidt, presiding
1. RTG Associates Presentation and Discussion.
The first hour of the meeting was spent with Ed Craig of RTG (Renewal and Transformation Group). Paula Kaufman, Karen Schmidt and Ed Craig offered feedback on the RTG Retreat and recent survey. The Powerpoint presentation has been sent to all library faculty with the copy of these minutes.
2. Approval of faculty meeting minutes of October 18, 2006
Tina Chrzastowski moved that the minutes be accepted. Janis Johnston seconded. The minutes were approved
3. Introductions and University Librarian’s report (Karen Schmidt)
Reann Montague, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, GSLIS, was introduced. She presented some pertinent information on GSLIS admissions and asked library faculty for information on assistantships they might have for the top candidates at GSLIS.
Amani Ayad: LAMP program to recruit minority students. For more information go to www.lisaccess.org
Karen, Rod and Paula are meeting with the Provost, Ruth Watkins and 2 CBOC 2/9 to discuss the budget. The issue of a Library IT fee is scheduled to go in front of the BOT in March or April. Karen has no sense of whether this will pass or not and what it will all mean for the Library.
Global Campus - there are lots of changes going on. There are ongoing discussions about what the model will be. The UIC Senate has approved this in general. UIUC and UIS have not
4. Executive Committee Report
Chris Prom reported that: the Executive Committee met eight times since the last Faculty Meeting on November 15 th. This report provides a summary of discussions and actions since then. A full list of meetings and minutes for each meeting are available through the EC website.
Also from Chris Prom’s report:
Faculty and AP positions
The committee discussed 13 position requests submitted by the Dec 1 deadline, and reviewed comments submitted by Faculty and AP’s after they were posted on the EC website. EC approved the following positions, pending availability of funds in the FY 2008 budget:
Coordinator for Web Content (Faculty)
Offices of Library IT , Services, Library Web Content Group, CAPT
Digital Library Research Programmer (AP)
Information Technology; Digital Services & Development Unit (DSD), Grainger Library
Research Programmer (AP)
Office of Library IT; Workstation and Network Support Unit
Curator of Special Collections (Faculty)
Rare Book and Manuscript Library
In addition, EC approved off-cycle a search for Library Friends Position being vacated by Jacque Flaherty Schweighart, a development associate responsible for the Annual Funds campaigns.
The executive committee recommended a candidate to the Acting University Library for the Interim CPLA Librarian, and approved a temporary Visiting Assistant Librarian position in the ACES Library, while Joe Zumalt is filling the CPLA position.
The executive committee discussed FRC representation and issues relating to the Annual Review Process. Given the difficulty in working with some sabbaticals and the relatively low number of tenured individuals in some divisions, EC recommended a one time exception to current policy: that two divisions be allowed to make split appointments for one year, rather than appointing an individual to the 3 year term, for the upcoming year only. In addition, EC approved a request from PTA to exempt FRC from doing reviews for 0Y and 1Y faculty hired after Oct. 1 of the preceding year, although faculty in this position must still prepare a dossier for their Peer Review Committees.
EC recommended an individual for the Campus Budget Oversight Committee. EC also recommended three faculty editors, nine paper preparers and nine interns for the librarians seeking promotion to associate professor. EC made recommendations regarding two Peer Review Committee appointments.
EC also provided recommendations to the Acting University Librarian regarding several confidential personnel issues.
EC reviewed the current policy documents regarding the process of making acting and interim appointments. A merged document was prepared and approved. It has been added to the EC website. The policy clarifies how advice should be given in filling these positions, by EC, unit heads, division coordinators, and others.
EC reviewed a charge and list of members for the Learning Commons Council. A copy of the approved document is on the EC website. EC also approved a revised charge for the Diversity Committee.
EC addressed a question as to whether retired faculty could serve on Library Committees, and recommended that direct committee membership not be allowed, but that retired faculty may be consulted on an as-needed basis.
EC discussed changes to the Annual Review process in response to a request from a faculty member, and agreed the FRC should implement the changes suggested for the current reporting year, including asking untenured librarians to submit a dossier/cover sheet instead of an annual report. EC also discussed criteria for evaluating Visiting Librarians, but did not make a formal recommendation. For the current year, we will be following the practice recommended by FRC: visiting librarians will be evaluated in all three areas, but merit increases will be calculated based on the librarianship score only, prior to any adjustments made by the Interim AUL.
EC discussed a request to move the Women and Gender Resources Librarian from the Area Studies Division to Social Sciences Division, consulting with both divisions. A call for further feedback from the general faculty is currently pending, after which EC will make a final recommendation.
EC is also in the process of reviewing the search committee procedural guidelines and interested faculty may comment by submitting information to the Acting University Librarian or Vice-Chair of EC.
EC considered three request for funding from the ICR fund, which provides seed money for research projects or new initiatives. EC recommended than one of the three projects be funded.
Office of Services
Scott Walter met with EC to discuss programmatic areas and new initiatives in the Office of Services. A full report is on the EC minutes for January 3 rd.
EC Reporting and Confidentiality Concerns
As Vice Chair of the EC and the Faculty, I would like to remind the faculty that the Library operates under the campus open meetings policy. EC itself meets in closed session, but any reports that we receive from committees charged by EC are available through our website. EC endeavors to make any documents that are not of a sensitive personnel nature available through our website, and we also publish formal agendas in advance of the meeting, as well as a complete set of minutes.
EC does not expect that individuals serving on the committee will make formal reports back to the division with which the faculty member is affiliated. Since EC membership is not based on divisional affilation and since EC has other reporting mechanisms in place. Individual members of EC may take advice on non-confidential issues from non-EC members, but members of EC may not share confidential personnel information outside of the committee. Any questions regarding these issues can be directed to the Vice chair of EC or the University Librarian.
5. FRC information on annual report process for all faculty (Mary C. Schlembach)
FRC Mary Schlembach reported on FRC procedures for the annual reports submitted by tenure-track (i.e., those receiving probation credit toward tenure) and tenured faculty. For the currently being completed personal annual reports, the tenure-track faculty will not submit the previously conventional annual report, but instead submit their updated dossier together with a short cover document which covers three additional areas:
1) significant accomplishments in librarianship in the past year;
2) research in progress and plans;
and 3) conferences attended.
FRC has proposed that the same format next year for the tenured faculty members.That is, they would have to submit an updated dossier plus the short "cover document" covering the three additional areas noted above.
Mary Stuart noted that the altered procedures for tenured faculty constituted a substantive change and that on previous occasions when we have had substantive changes in the annual report outline, there had been a deliberative process with proposals submitted in writing to the faculty in advance of meetings where they were to be discussed. That should be done with the proposed change.
Schlembach noted that the objective of the change was to reduce the untenured faculty's burden of preparing an updated dossier and personal annual report each year. She noted that FRC had gotten behind schedule in making the change so that it would use the new process this year for the untenured and then bring the experience gained to bear on a faculty discussion of the changes for the tenured faculty. Lisa Hinchliffe, as a FRC member noted that FRC needed to indicate what the process is or should be for making changes in the annual report and review practices.Karen Schmidt said that the discussion indicated that we should put the matter before a March or April faculty meeting for more consideration.
William Maher noted that the fact that FRC was putting forward the idea of the new requirements for tenure faculty members' reports as a proposal that could be discussed mitigated some of his concerns about the process, since the faculty as a whole would have a chance to discuss the matter. However, he noted that if the idea is to use the experience gained in working with the new format for untenured this year to inform further deliberations, then reviewing this at the March or April faculty meetings would be premature. He then noted that he thought that the basic idea of replacing the current Personal Annual Report with a dossier plus short cover document was a bad one since it not only increased the amount of work on an already unpleasant task for the tenured faculty but it also was based on an incorrect assumption that the dossier format could fulfill the role of an annual report. He noted that his objections should not be seen as a defense of the current Personal Annual Report and evaluation process, since the system we have been using for at least the past 29 years is seriously flawed, and that several colleagues had noted that a major gap in the current system, left unaddressed by the proposed one, is the lack of a real role for supervisors in doing annual evaluations, as is commonly done in other organizations of professional specialists. In fact, what is needed is a much more fundamental reconsideration of the report and evaluation process rather than just tinkering around the edges as proposed by FRC.
William Mishco commented that at a time within the past 20 or soy ears, we had a system in which supervisors conducted the evaluations but that the results from that were so poor (a great deal of inconsistency from supervisor to supervisor) that it was abandoned in favor of the broader review that FRC currently manages. Paula Kaufman suggested that before we have a discussion about the specific processes and tools for evaluation, we needed to have a broader discussion about such fundamental issues. Karen Schmidt agreed and said that she would have the Executive Committee come up with some way to organize such a discussion at a future faculty meeting. Meanwhile, the untenured people will follow the process as outlined by Schlembach, and tenured faculty are free to follow either the existing format or submit their reports in the proposed format.
6. Other business and Adjournment
Karen Schmidt called for old business and then new business. There being none, Jo Kibbee moved, and Gail Hueting seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was approved and the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.