LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING
Date: March 16, 2011
Location: 126 GSLIS
Time: 3pm - 4:30pm
Call to Order
Adoption of the Agenda - Paula Kaufman
Agenda was adopted with the addition of a Lightning Talk by Merinda Hensley.
Approval of Minutes - Paula Kaufman
Minutes were approved after amended by Nancy O'Brien and JoAnn Jacoby to include details of the announcement about the Mortensen Distinguished Lecturer, presenting on April 6th, and to correct a comment regarding the Reference Services Team brought up during a discussion regarding the New Service Model Social Science and Applied Sciences Team. Approved with a motion by Al Kagan, seconded by Tina Chrzastowski.
Remembrance of Jing Liao - Jane Block
Jane Block provided remarks in remembrance of our colleague Jing Liao. Jing will be missed.
Introductions - Paula Kaufman
Nancy O'Brien introduced Beth DiVincenzo, Visiting Anthropology/Sociology Librarian. Beth has a Bachelor's degree from Northwestern in Anthropology. Her graduate degree in Library and Information Sciences is from our campus and she has experience in museums.
Report of the University Librarian - Paula Kaufman
Reminder that 5pm today at the Alumni Center the campus will be celebrating the promotion and tenure of our faculty with a book-plating reception. We have three Library faculty who will be celebrating: Travis McDade, Paula Carnes and Wendy Shelburne. Wendy has set a new high with the first electronic resource; an e-book called "Equine Behavior."
Regarding the disaster in Japan so far it appears all our colleagues are okay. If anyone has any further information please let us all know.
The Library is reviewing the statewide contract we have with OCLC to determine whether or not we can afford to continue to participate. UIC and UIUC Libraries have been carrying the financial burden for the rest of our colleagues. At one point in time the rates were pretty favorable overall and we saw participation in a statewide contract as one of our public engagement responsibilities for our libraries. Lynn Wiley has been working with a committee that is trying to determine how to approach the contract this time around. We will determine if we have to let the fiscal responsibility to our own institution override the responsibility to the state if the gap is big enough. We estimate we could be paying as much as $250,000 more on an annual basis than we would pay under our own separate contract, if the terms for a statewide contract remain the same.
On June 30th the four southern state library systems will dissolve and be re-constituted on July 1 as a single system called the Illinois Heartland System. Our library is not affected too much by this reconfiguration except in the case of continuing education where we have relied on Lincoln Trails Library System. Presently, it is unclear as to whether or not the reconfiguration will have any bearing on these services.
The Library's budget hearing is tomorrow (March 24). No decisions have yet been made but it is clear there will be a cut of some sort. Paula's number one priority is to get the salary program in shape again and hopes there will be money from campus for that and/or the units will be allowed to give raises this year.
We have a set of proposals in for the Library IT fee. The Library IT Fee Advisory Committee will be meeting the last of March or first of April. As far as the process, remember that the Advisory committee is just that. They make recommendations to the Provost and the Provost determines how the money is spent. For the last couple of years our budget has been cut. We have gotten some new monies and those new monies all come from the fee. The recurring monies will also be coming from the fee. This includes the million dollars we have gotten in the past few years. The upper limit of the fee is constrained. They are not going to raise the fee this year and when they do raise it, it is a small increase. In total, the Library IT fee generates about $14M. Every recurring commitment that is made on the fee is money that is not available for one-time things in the future. We do have the $250,000 for student minimum wage increases. The original arrangement we had was that we would be given $250,000 for three years for those increases by which time we would have reduced our student budget by enough people that we wouldn't need this money. That has not happened. We do have $250,000 contingency money identified if we need it for this year. But, since we are one of the largest student employers on campus we hope the Committee and Provost will say yes to continuing to give us the $250,000 to cover the student minimum wage increases.
Nancy O'Brien - Do we have to have a hiring plan for the budget hearing meeting?
Paula - No, every year we are asked for a hiring plan but haven't been asked yet this year. EC is trying to get ahead on the process and will soon be talking about budget requests. We usually have to turn in a hiring plan by May or June. It is true that when we fill jobs if a job is not on the hiring plan the hiring process is slower.
Lynne Rudasill - To clarify - The total $4 million the Provost has in reserve from the Library IT fee does not automatically come to the Library.
Paula - Correct. Each year we have to make a proposal for those funds and it may or may not be approved.
There are concerns about what will happen to our collections budget if new money is not generated for it. Collection money has been coming from the Library IT fee money.
Executive Committee Discussion Items - David Ward
1. - David Ward
a. What is the best way for FRC and PAC to provide consistent, objective evaluative feedback to tenure track candidates?
b. What should this feedback consist of in addition to scores?
(Comments provided by Kirstin Dougan, Jennifer Teper, Mary Laskowski, Nancy O'Brien, Lynn Rudasill, Cindy Ingold, Scott Schwartz)
Clarification was asked about the issue - Is the assumption that if PRC is playing a mentoring role they will not be able to maintain enough objectivity to provide adequate evaluative feedback?
There was no consensus on this issue. EC will have more discussions and present any proposed changes to the faculty for further discussion and possible vote.
2. - David Ward
a. How does the current divisional structure fit current working models and practices?
b. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current divisional structure?
c. What changes (if any) should be made to improve or enhance the library's organizational structure?
(Comments by: Tina C., Scott S., Bill Mischo, Scott Walter, Nancy O'Brien, Barbara Ford, Diane Laskowski, Lynn Rudasill)
First, we need a list of what we want divisions to do, to focus on, for the library. EC will review bylaws and provide a summary of what purpose divisions were intended to serve.
Parliamentary Procedures and Processes - Bill Maher
Bill Maher provided an overview of parliamentary procedures and processes by mentioning Michael Grossman's paper, "Faculty Participation in Shared Governance at UIUC." The paper discusses what shared governance is on campus. Bill read some highlights of the document, paraphrasing: "Shared governance is what makes a good university a great university. It is [because of] the contributions and expertise of the faculty [for which] we are all hired and treasured that, when we convene as a whole, ... make that greatness happen." In other words, through a shared governance structure, through discussion, through debate and resolution, and through votes, a good university becomes a great one.
There are various elements and players in shared governance ranging from the Board of Trustees to the University Administration to the University Senate, to the faculty. The core areas in which the faculty shares in governance in the University is in matters related to educational policy. The faculty is in the best position to define what educational policy should be. This comes not just from the U of I perspective but from the concept of shared governance going back to at least the 1960s.
The Library is not just a service enterprise but an educational enterprise as well. We are engaged in educating the students. We are core players in education even though we have a definite service component. Thus we need to be part of educational policy.
Shared governance also applies to establishing policies and procedures for promotion and tenure, for dismissal, and for sabbatical leaves in support of research. We are also involved in such things as long range goal setting and developing strategic plans. These are the things that have been placed on faculty meeting agendas in the last few years.
Our Library faculty meetings are not clearly conducted in a way that takes advantage of the process to handle decision-making with a shared governance model. We have done some things to move closer toward a process that would provide for more participation in decision-making. For instance, we have set up a formal agenda committee with designated time slots for discussion of items on the agenda, and we have moved away from giving reports by having information available to the faculty in advance of the meetings and expecting faculty to come to meetings prepared. Now we need to move towards having preparation done in advance on issues to be presented as a vote.
The only way a body can speak (as a whole) is if it comes to a vote. You don't know where a consensus is until there is a vote. Business matters should be decided on by votes. There are two types of votes - a "Binding Vote" (one to change bylaws, for example), and an "Advisory Vote" (one where for instance we might vote whether or not some portion of the New Service Model is ready to go forward). For an Advisory Vote to be taken, first someone needs to come forward and present some sort of a resolution.
Votes are a means by which the faculty's collective voice can be heard. To get clarity on where we stand on an issue, we need three elements, discussion, a resolution statement, and a vote on it. But we cannot conduct business (including taking votes) without a quorum. A quorum is 30% of the faculty measured as of August 16th of each year. Currently, we need 28 voting faculty in attendance for a quorum.
Action items should be placed at the top of an agenda. When an agenda is being asked to be approved, it can have items added to it, deleted from it, modified, or re-ordered.
The faculty body should remember it has a collegial, not an adversarial relationship with the administration. The administration should also remember they have a collegial relationship with faculty, not an adversarial one. Faculty and administration should have a shared goal. And while not all advice faculty give the administration is taken it would be foolhardy for the administration to ignore completely the advice of faculty. In a shared governance model there is an understandable constant give and take between faculty and administration.
Ad Hoc Items:
Lightning Presentation - Merinda Hensley
Merinda made a brief announcement about the "Author's Rightxs" initiative she and Sarah Shreeves are involved in aimed at bringing more awareness to faculty and graduate students regarding their rights to keep "rights" on original work they publish. Ask Merinda for more information or for stickers and flyers that can work to bring about more public awareness.
Scott Walter - Illinois Library Association "snapshot day" will be April 13th. Looking to expand it, possibly include video interviews.
Barbara Ford - April 6th at 4pm in 126 GSLIS will be the Mortensen's Distinguished Lecturer presentation and a 20th anniversary celebration of the Center.
JoAnn Jacoby - The New Service Model Reference Implementation Team has been convened.
Adjourned at 4:25pm.