LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING
Date: October 27, 2010
Location: 3rd Floor Levis
Time: 3pm - 4:30pm
Call to Order
Adoption of the Agenda (David Ward)
Agenda was adopted as is.
Approval of Minutes (David Ward)
Minutes were not approved due to no quorum.
Introductions (David Ward)
Sarah Shreeves introduced Lauren Dodge, Visiting Program Coordinator. Lauren will be helping develop a training and consultation program related to copyright.
Report of the University Librarian (None)
Executive Committee Discussion Items (David Ward)
David Ward announced there will be a retreat December 16, 8am - noon on the third floor of Levis Faculty Center. The purpose of the retreat is to discuss the current and next year budget priorities and use outcomes of the discussion to provide input into the Library's strategic planning process.
1. Standing Search Committee Concept- discussion (David Ward)
EC has discussed the idea of having a standing search committee that would handle all searches for a given period (e.g. 1-2 years) so as to bring some consistency to the search process for faculty and AP positions.
Beth Woodard - Beth expressed concerns about the large burden this would place on a small number of people.
Mary Stuart - Mary said the goal of consistency is good but there may be easier ways to get consistency (updated guidelines, etc.) rather than set up a situation that might compromise specialized expertise if the standing committee did not have a subject matter expert appropriate for a particular search.
Kirstin Dougan - Kirstin asked if there was an HR manual for the hiring process and wondered if HR couldn't handle some of the things that are done for every search (like certain position announcement postings).
Sarah Shreeves - Sarah suggested we might have a standing committee for some types of positions but not others. For instance, Research Programmer positions might be filled with a standing committee.
JoAnn Jacoby - JoAnn supported Sarah's point. Research Programmer positions are often grant funded thereby creating an environment where the persons hired into Research Programmer positions often cycle in and out of the Library with regularity.
Scott Schwartz - Scott commented that if we establish a precedent of using a standing committee it is likely we will continue doing so. It may also be difficult to decide where the dividing line should be drawn with respect to positions filled by a standing committee versus a hand-picked committee.
Suggestions for improving consistency with or without a standing committee:
1. Provide some reporting out on the recruitment process, sharing strength of the pool, etc.
2. Receive quicker notification of the interview schedule so as to have time to plan to attend job talks.
3. Update HR Manual
4. Make sure an HR person always works with the search committee early on (and checks in periodically with them) to ensure the process is clearly understood and followed
5. Announcement/ recruitment process clear and consistent
Old Business (Items for Action or Discussion)
1. ) - Kathie Veach, Lynn Wiley
Legislative changes to procurement code are creating major bottlenecks for purchasing processes. It is now critical that major purchases are strategically planned for well in advance and any interactions with vendors are closely monitored and documented.
Kathie and Lynn provided an overview of the Procurement legislation (SB51) noting it is taking three to six months for large purchase orders to work their way through the system. Aside from the delays in getting approval, any interactions with vendors will require additional reporting and documentation. New certification requirements could mean that a vendor will not do the paper work and this can even be the case after we have had recurring expends with that vendor. In all cases where there are questions regarding a purchase, or a need to make large purchases, it is imperative Kathie is consulted as early as possible for non collection items. Purchases on collection funds requiring a license or that are over the sole source limit will need to be referred to Acquisitions. Reimbursements for out of pocket expenses greater than $250.00 for purchases made by an individual will no longer be made.
(See the SB51 PowerPoint presentation by Kathie and Lynn.)
2. - Bill Maher
President Hogan has put forth proposed organizational changes as well as administrative changes in an attempt to streamline and coordinate administrative practices and better support the mission of the University.
At issue is that the Board of Trustees and President are trying to clarify that the Chancellors sit as agents of the University Administration as well as their respective campus. This clarification will occur via a change in their titles to include Vice President.
Other administrative changes would include the appointment of a Vice President of Health Affairs and a modification of the title of the Vice President of Technology and Economic Development to Vice President of Research, Technology and Economic Development.
How are areas of research impacted by the new Research VP position? How does it get paid for? The Administrative Review Report (ARR) suggests savings from consolidating "back office" operations that could go toward funding the new expansion of Vice Presidents. However, there has been no clarification s to which offices and functions constitute "back office" operations.
Lynne Rudasill - Lynn suggested HR and IT are areas that have been mentioned where consolidation could happen.
Rudy Leon - Rudy is troubled by the addition of "research" to the VP title and the way the changes in the position are expressed in the proposal. Specifically, it is unclear what "coordinating and managing" research agendas would look like for non-monetizing research agendas.
Al Kagan - Al expressed concerns regarding the direction of more and more centralization. For instance, if all three libraries are forced to unify how would this impact the priorities in our libraries for instance with respect to collection development.
Becky Smith - Becky noted that many licenses are for directly affiliated persons and this limited access is not always apparent to the broader University environment.
Bill Mischo - Bill asked if further consolidation would further limit submission of grants, for instance the IMLS grants.
3. Campus Security Cameras - Jeff Schrader
The campus is installing security cameras in strategic locations including Library allocations. We are looking at ways to improve perimeter security in 5 major Library facilities: Main Library, Grainger, ACES, Undergrad, Oak St.
Jeff indicated the cameras are primarily for exterior doors including mechanical doors and there will likely be 2 cameras per door. Staff and patron safety are the primary reasons for wanting to install cameras, though the Rare Book and Manuscript Library camera installation is also designed to prevent theft. Any camera in public areas will be set to screen out anything on a visible computer monitor, to protect privacy. Jeff noted there have been some reported incidents of harassment in the Undergrad Library (UGL) near the bathrooms on the lower level and cameras are planned for that hallway as well. There will be a meeting specifically about the cameras on November 12, 8:30-10:30am in rm. 66 of Main Library.
Rudy Leon - Rudy works on the lower level of the UGL and noted her trepidations about the planned hallway camera installation in that area.
Ad Hoc Items:
New Service Model - Reference Three Tiers of Reference Kathleen Kern
Kathleen explained how the New Service Model for Reference services makes the typical three-tiered levels of information needs by patrons more explicit. A short video was created in the Library to demonstrate the tiers and the methods of referral.
"Reference Tiers and Referrals" - YouTube.com (a 6:40 min video)
For more information read the Reference report linked off the New Service Model website.
(NSM presentation/discussion morphed into Lightning Presentation)
Adjournment was at 4:43PM