Wednesday, October 18, 2006
3:00 – 4:30 pm
GSLIS Room 126
Cindy Ingold, presiding
1. Approval of faculty meeting minutes of September 20, 2006
Tina Chrzastowski made a motion to approve the minutes and Michael Norman seconded the motion. The motion passed in silent acclamation.
Michael Norman introduced Visiting Librarians Myung-Ja (MJ) Han - Visiting Metadata Librarian for Mass Digitization Projects and Kurt Groetsch - Visiting Metadata Librarian for Illinois Harvest Project.
Susan Edwards introduced Kathie Veach, our new Grants and Contracts Specialist inthe Business Office.
3. University Librarian’s report (Cindy Ingold for Karen Schmidt)
Last spring, Provost Katehi indicated her interest in looking at a fee or tuition increase for the Library. Planning for this accelerated in the past few weeks, and on October 10 the Provost made a presentation to the Student Tuition Advisory Board to gather their feedback about this idea.
The tuition board met in 428 Library, with Provost Katehi, Mike Andrechak (Associate Provost who works with budget matters), Karen Schmidt, Scott Walter and Rod Allen in attendance with the students. Both the Library and CITES had input into the brief power point presentation. The Library portion relied on the student surveys for general ideas of what we might be able to do with additional money. Following the presentation, we went on a brief tour of the Main Library, including Classics, Deck 10 of the Stacks and ending in the Reference Room. The presentation was well-received, and we are now being asked to provide more information on what Library and CITES might do with fees set at different levels. The next step would be to fold this into a Board of Trustees presentation on possible fee increases in general, possibly in January.
A team of the AULs and Rod Allen along with 2 staff from CITES will be working on this next assignment, which is due to the Provost in about 2 weeks. It is important to note that this is a long way from being implemented. At this point we do not have any information on the money that would be generated, how it might be split between the Library and CITES, how it might be assessed, or when. As we get more information we will be sharing that.
On October 12, Karen was asked to join a meeting on the Global Campus with Doug Vinzant from UA and Susan Singleton from CARLI. Vinzant was able to lay out a very scaled back plan for the Global Campus that was quite different from the scenario that the Library originally received. In Year 1, there would be no students; Year 2, some 760 students; Year 3, about 2,300 students, etc. We have a number of questions that we have submitted to Vinzant, including whether the students would have Net IDs in the early years, if there is expected to be technical support for students in other countries, expectations for ILL of books, and if a technology baseline is being established for incoming students. We expect to learn more about this very soon.
4. Committee Reports
Executive Committee (Cindy Ingold)
Since the last faculty meeting EC has met 3 times.
At the September 25 meeting:
· EC discussed revisions to the process for requesting academic positions. EC agreed to stick with the 6 month cycle for calls for requests; however, individuals may submit requests anytime if they can make a compelling argument about why the position should be filled immediately. Karen sent an email to LIBFAC about this on October 3 which included an attachment with the newly revised request form.
· EC recommended names for the search committee for the AUL for Collections position. Cindy said an email message has also gone out about this.
· We approved a proposal requesting ICR funding .
At the October 2 meeting:
· EC met with Beth Sandore, AUL for Library Information Technology Planning and Policy, to discuss a reorganization plan for library IT. We gave input to Beth, and asked her to provide a more detailed version of the plan. Beth also discussed her plans for working at the UC Berkeley Library in spring 2007. A message has gone out about this.
· EC provided final input to Karen concerning position requests that were received last spring. Karen sent an email to LIBFAC about this on October 3. An attached table listed the requests along with the decisions that were made.
· As you are all aware, the Library has received an IMLS grant for AV Preservation. EC gave recommendations for names for a search committee for an Audio -Visual Project Coordinator to work on this grant
· EC discussed whether additional individuals should be added to the Mass Digitization Group. We also gave suggestions for creating a more structured mechanism to incorporate feedback about what items should be digitized.
At the October 9 meeting:
· EC discussed a more detailed version of the IT reorganization plan, and made some recommendations regarding this plan. First, EC recommended that Beth Sandore move forward immediately regarding one of the components for reorganization; and second, we recommended that an Acting AUL for Information Technology Planning and Policy be named while Beth is working in California in the spring.
· Finally, EC recommended that IDEALS be made a permanent unit of the library
Bylaws Committee (Bill Maher)
At the September faculty meeting, it was agreed that further discussion of the
recent set of proposed Bylaws amendments would be concluded via e-mail on LIBFAC-L. Mr. Maher
made the announcement of the issue and a call for comments to be finished by 5:00 p.m. Monday
October 16. During the course of the electronic discussion it arose that a clarification was
needed on amendment no. 5, AND the Bylaws Committee then offered the following clarification:
“It is the Bylaws Committee's understanding that what is intended is to clarify that the form by which advice of the faculty to be given on such structural changes is by means of a vote on a ballot. Further, to resolve the question of who is voting, it is our understanding that the process would apply as follows: changes within a single division should be subject to an advisory vote of the faculty within that division changes that affect more than one division should be subject to an advisory vote of the faculty of all the divisions so affected changes in multiple divisions should be subject to an advisory vote of all of the faculty of the Library.”
Mr. Maher spoke so that the clarification offered electronically might become part of the permanent legislative record of the amendments on which we will be voting as soon after the faculty meeting as NVEP can prepare a ballot.
There were no questions or comments from the floor.
5. Report on grant from the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP) (Beth Sandore)
Ms. Sandore distributed a 1-page description of the project and its progress (attached). She recognized several people working on the NDIIPP project, including Janet Eke--Project Coordinator (Based in GSLIS), Bill Mischo, Matt Cordial, Joanne Kaczmarek, and Tim Donohue.
She explained that this is not a grant, but a partnership with the Library of Congress, several other universities, and other information organizations such as PBS and others. Ms. Sandore offered a slide presentation on the status and scope of the project (see: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jeke/waw_guide/echodepbrief2006_sandore.ppt More information on the project can be found at www.ndiipp.uiuc.edu
Post-tenure review discussion (Beth Woodard)
Ms.Woodard serves as the library representative to the Provost’s Committee on Retention and a subcommittee thereof on Associate Professors. She explained that about 25% of the long-term Associate professor on campus (promoted over the past 30 years or so) are library faculty members and asked what might be done to help these faculty members move on to full professor status.
Discussion ensued with Tim Cole noting that some faculty “lose track” of their progress given the nature of our annual report process. Barbara Henigman noted that the FRC will be revising the annual report process so that it looks more like a dossier. Other issues and questions raised included: 1) whether we really want to pressure everyone into full professor and whether the priorities of faculty members shift after tenure, making things like projects, public outreach, and other less “focused” issue more appealing though less useful for promotion to full professor (Bill Maher); 2) whether the criteria for promotion to full professor within the library faculty ought to be reviewed (Bill Mischo); 3) issue of committee work and university involvement, which seems to impact Associate professors most (Janice Pilch) and the overwhelming administrative workload for some (Miranda Remnek) ; 4) the need to look at the demographics of Associate professors to see how we can support productive careers (Beth Sandore). Tim Cole mentioned that the Provost has formed a new committee on reform of the promotion and tenure review process that might take up some of these issues.
7. Report from the Task Force on Integrative Research Services—next phase of the proposal for a scholarly commons . (Beth Woodard)
Ms. Woodard reminded the faculty that the next phase for the proposed scholarly commons would soon commence. This phase will include a great deal of communication with the teaching faculty and others. An email will be forthcoming with more details.
8. No old business
9. No new business
Valerie Hotchkiss announced the establishment of The Midwest Book & Manuscript Studies Program, a joint program of GSLIS and RBML which offers courses and a certificate of special collections librarianship. Valerie is the program director and asked interested faculty members to contact if they’d like to get involved.
Leslie Rios asked for volunteers for the Library Book Sale October 25 and 26.
Meg Burger reminding the gathering of Gaming Night, 7-10pm on October 21 in UGL.
Beth Sandore announced that Library IT would be establishing office consultation hours for advice on technological matters.
Beth Sandore made the motion to adjourn the meeting, and Janice Pilch seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15pm.
Secretary of the Faculty