LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING
Date: February 3, 2010
Location: 126 GSLIS
Time: 3pm - 5pm
Call to Order
Approval of Minutes (Paula Kaufman)
Minutes from the November 18th faculty meeting were approved by Mary Laskowski seconded by Qiang Jin.
Introduction of New Faculty Members (Paula Kaufman)
Marek Sroka introduced Harriett Green as the English and Digital Humanities Librarian. Harriett received a BA from Harvard, a MA in Humanities from the University of Chicago and her MLS from University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science in 2009.
Report of the University Librarian (Paula Kaufman)
The Library must give back $456,000 to the campus by the end of February. This money is from recurring funds and the "give back" is permanent. Paula provided information on Power Point slides showing the areas where the cuts came from. Here are the totals from those slides:
$200,000 Academic Pool
$46,000 Staff Pool
$36,000 Reclass Pool
$175,000 GA Pool
$5,000 Wages Pool
The balance of funds in these pools can be re-allocated depending on the Library's needs, but the money cut will not be returned to the Library.
Other measures the University is taking to minimize the impact of the dire financial circumstances of the State of Illinois include implementing furlough days, imposing a hiring freeze, and offering an early retirement and voluntary separation package.
The two positions the Library was planning to fill, Visiting Media Preservation Librarian and Life Science Digital Librarian, have been put on hold by the Campus. The only hires the Library can make at this time are for positions that are classified as academic hourly, grad hourly, and positions funded entirely by grant funds, contracts, or endowment funds.
Projections for next year's budget range from a 10% -33% decrease from this year, with a likelihood of the percentage falling between 10% and 15%. These kinds of cuts are going to significantly change what this institution is or becomes in the future. We are the second highest funded institution in the CIC on a per student basis, but we have a much larger and decaying physical plant and we are very diverse in all the programs we support; these funding cuts will have a substantial impact on every aspect of the institution.
The role of the student library/IT fee in the Library's budget will be changing as we rely more upon these resources for our core operations. Students pay library/IT fees of $244/semester and this generates about $14,000,000 for the Campus. Currently $1,000,000 in State funding for the Library is being replaced by $1,000,000 funds from student library fees. The minimum student wage differential was paid for by the library fees this year but the use of library fees for this purpose after FY11 is not assured. .
Regarding the Voluntary Separation and Voluntary Retirement Programs, the Library will evaluate applications using these criteria:
1. Is the position one we won't need to replace?
2. Can the position be filled through internal reallocation?
3. Can we realize a salary savings by hiring a lower-salaried person?
4. Can the work be contracted out?
5. Can we find other ways to do the work? E.G., joint appointments on or off campus; new models
From April 2-14th we need to make decisions on who is granted voluntary separation based on what is in the best interest of maintaining services and core functions of the Library.
The Library must provide a description of how we are going to fill the functions of the vacated positions (or not) and send this information to the Campus. (The Library has been deficit-free for quite some time and we would like to remain so, therefore filling positions will be undertaken with a thoughtful, yet conservative approach.) The Campus will make final determinations and convey that to us by April 23.
The State budget is about $26 billion. The estimated shortfall for the State for this year alone is $13 billion. (This deficit does not include pension funds.) Even if taxes are raised to offset the shortfall for this year, next year State funding will likely fall short even more than $13 billion. This suggests the University will remain in a difficult financial position for the near future. Each week, the University incurs approximately another $17 million in debt due to not receiving funds from the State. The campus estimates there will be a $55 million gap we need to make up for next year. Several project management committees are being formed to focus on specific approaches to cutting major costs. These committees will put in intensive work for short period of time, looking at activities that are centrally funded where we may accomplish more with less or perhaps eliminate some activities entirely. If anyone is interested in working on one of these committees, let Paula know and she can recommend you.
Lisa Hinchliffe asked who is responsible for making decisions about the voluntary separation requests. Paula stated that will be the Budget Group with the Executive Committee advising.
Executive Committee Report (Bill Mischo)
The Executive Committee spent a lot of time looking at budget matters and position requests. There were a lot of requests for positions and we are trying to cover requests through creative arrangements-cooperative relationships with other institutions or teaching departments. Assuming collections budgets are excluded we need to work out budget cut scenarios of $2 million or $3 million by July.
The Executive Committee reviewed the white papers submitted in response to the four areas of concern that were summarized from the faculty meeting discussions of July - November 2009. (See meeting minutes from November 18, 2009 faculty meeting.) The white papers are all very thoughtful and should be discussed with the full faculty. EC recommends the white papers be discussed at the next two faculty meetings, two in March and two in April. All white papers can be reviewed along with a summary of recommendations provided by EC through the EC website. (see link above.)
Lisa Hinchliffe asked if the recommendations could be annotated to note those that may be implemented immediately, those that require a systematic approach to change, those that require a vote of the faculty, etc.
All faculty are encouraged to review the white papers and provide input by posting comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. Posting to the faculty listserv models desirable shared governance practices but comments directly to EC members are also acceptable.
New Service Model Discussion (JoAnn Jacoby)
JoAnn Jacoby provided a review of the status of New Service Model (NSM) implementation and opened the floor for discussion The updated slides can be viewed here: http://www.library.illinois.edu/nsm/NSM__FacultyMeeting3Feb2010.pdf
Bill Maher asked what kind of analysis of costs versus benefits has been done around the New Service Models. JoAnn Jacoby responded that there was a 2009 report that included some degree of this kind of analysis and she would email this to Libnews. As per JoAnn's email, "Appendix 2 of the 2009 New Service Models Report provides an overview of costs, savings/opportunities to reallocate, and benefits of projects underway as of July 6, 2009." JoAnn will update Appendix 2 in July 2010 to include current projects.
Lisa Hinchliffe asked that if there is an assessment team that comes after NSM processes have come to completion. JoAnn responded that Reference, Research and Government Information Services is working on a six month progress report and that she and Scott have been working with the embedded librarians to develop assessment metrics that demonstrate the impact of their work. Becky Smith suggested that this can be challenging in some cases as there are not always benchmarks to compare with. Lisa suggested that attention be paid to unanticipated or unexpected consequences of the changes.
Paula Carns asked for a timeline for the implementation of the Literatures NSM team. JoAnn responded that a Team will be charged in the next week or two and that implementation may begin in May 2010. Work has already begun with the English Library weeding their reference collection and their gift backlogs.
Mary Mallory asked if there is an effort to de-dupe the government documents materials as department libraries are closed. JoAnn responded that duplicates of all sorts, including government documents are being reviewed so that partial serial runs consolidated into one complete run whenever possible. We are trying to avoid sending multiple copies of the same title to Oak Street.
Jo Kibbee asked about how representation from outside the Library will be included on the implementation teams. JoAnn responded that the teams will be sought from the existing pool of outside advisors discussed and vetted in the Library and on campus last fall. Whenever possible the implementation teams will draw on faculty who served on the corresponding planning team in order to provide continuity.
Energy Costs Discussion - (Energy Cons. & Sustain. Working Group Tom Teper)
Tom Teper and Jeff Schraeder provided slides showing energy costs for the Library. We have very little control over what we spend on energy and utilities (chilled water, electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary fees, steam heat, etc.) and we pay a portion of fees for every building we occupy. As an example of our energy costs, the Library paid $276,763.49 in a single month during 2009. Of that total $75,485.90 was for electricity. So, ways to save money on energy costs are to occupy less space (clear out remote storage facilities where possible) and use less energy (change out incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescent ones, shut down electric-powered equipment when not in use, remove computers, monitors, printers that are not fully utilized).
We've been working toward a goal of reducing computers assigned to staff that are not routinely in service and initiating an automatic turn-on for machines so they can be shut down overnight and then be ready for us (turned on) when we arrive at work in the morning. Cost savings can be had both by turning off electricity supplies to unused or idle equipment and by taking out of commission extra computers and other equipment if it is not fully used. Aside from savings on the costs of electricity the costs of staff time to keep extra computers patched against viruses and keep the latest software running on them could be diverted to supporting other IT needs the Library has.
Discussion ensued around this topic regarding units that have complied with the Library's request to relinquish computers not fully utilized and units that have not made similar efforts. Cherie Weible indicated the units she supervises have willingly done all they can to comply and asked others to do the same. The issue is not to take away computers that might present a hardship for a unit. Instead the issue is to evaluate in an objective manner how computers (and other technology devices) are used within our units and consider more creative mechanisms for getting our work done effectively with fewer computers and other devices. A plea was made to all of us to contact Lee Galaway in the IT department to decommission or re-assign any equipment that may be eligible for such actions.
Library P&T Process Discussion - Expectations and Problems
Cindy Ingold, Nancy O'Brien, Lynne Rudasill, Beth Sandore, Mary Stuart, John Wagstaff
Cindy and Lynne provided a brief overview of roles of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) and the Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (PTAC). The Faculty Review Committee plays two roles; overseeing the annual review process of all faculty - as per Provost Communication # 21; and providing the first level of review for faculty papers considered for Promotion and Tenure in the fall. The PTAC provides the second level of review for Promotion and Tenure cases. Both committees also review Peer Review Committee (PRC) reports: PTAC reviews 0Y-3Y reports; FRC reviews 4Y-5Y reports.
Mary Stuart and John Wagstaff discussed the expectations of the faculty members going up for tenure or promotion and expectations of paper editors and paper preparers. Ultimately each of us is responsible for our own promotion or tenure case and we should expect to provide the best possible case for consideration and feel like we own our own papers. Do not hesitate to seek feedback from other faculty.
Paper preparers must focus on reading all the letters, papers sent out and the candidate's dossier and provide arguments for the candidate's case. Paper preparers should take an evaluative tone and present the best possible case for their candidate. The role of the Faculty Review Committee is to provide an objective evaluation.
Lightning Project Reports (5 minutes)
Lynn Wiley - Access and Analysis project - (needed to postpone presentation)
Lynn Wiley kindly offered to bump her presentation to the next faculty meeting.
Scott Schwartz - Library-in-a-Box (needed to postpone presentation)
Scott Schwartz set up in outside GSLIS rm. 126 the slick "Library-in-a-Box" marketing kit for faculty to view. The kit is designed to be taken on the road by anyone doing public outreach and engagement. Scott may speak to us directly about the kit at the next faculty meeting since the meeting ran out of time and Lightning Project reports were not made.
Announcements & Questions
Mary Laskowski announced that we have access to a trial version of five hundred streaming digital media titles. Please contact Mary if you have any ideas for purchases.
5:04 pm with a motion by Lynne Rudasill, seconded by Lynn Wiley.