LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING
Date: November 16, 2011
Location: 126 GSLIS
Time: 3pm – 4:30pm
Call to Order
Adoption of the Agenda
The Agenda was adopted.
Approval of Minutes
The Minutes from the October 26th meeting were approved.
Report of the University Librarian
Paula reported that the State SB1750 amendment has been passed by both houses and is now waiting for the Governor’s signature. Everyone should feel free to contact the Governor to encourage him to sign the bill as long as we do it on our own time. If signed, the amendments will provide a level of relief to institutions of higher education in procurement areas where special circumstances need to be considered with respect to procurement contracts. For reference, see the bill’s House Committee Amendment 1 and House Floor Amendment 2. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1750&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=84&GA=97
There was no news to report on the budget for next year. Budget hearings are scheduled for February and March rather than March and April.
Campus has reviewed and updated the Target of Opportunity Program (TOP). The updated program favors identification of candidates through searches and allows three different ways the Library can get help hiring someone from an underrepresented group. For details, see Provost Communication # 7. http://www.provost.illinois.edu/communication/07/Communication_No7_[8-5-11]_[POLICY].pdf.
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) project called Blue Waters, funded by theNational Science Foundation (NSF), is back in business with the Cray company stepping in where IBM departed. Blue Waters is creating a computing environment on the cutting edge with great opportunities for the University. For more information see the Blue Waters website: http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters/
Executive Committee Discussion Items
Combined Search Committee Proposal – David Ward
The idea of a standing search committee was first discussed and brought to the faculty for consideration in spring 2011. The general purpose of a standing search committee would be to provide a more efficient and consistent search process for all library searches. Each search would still have flexibility to bring in subject matter experts and persons from across the campus, as needed. The standing search committee would be a pool larger than what would be needed for just one search thereby providing assurances that not all searches were conducted by the same few people. Membership on the standing search committee would be some combination of staggered terms. There would be a Chair and the committee structure would be in place for three years with a review after the end of the third year to determine whether or not it was providing efficiency and consistency needed for the Library searches.
(Comments provided by: John Wagstaff, Mary Mallory, JoAnn Jacoby, Pat Allen, Kirstin Dougan, Jenny Emanuel, Mary Laskowski, Tom Teper, Chris Prom)
Comments brought up by the faculty focused on trying to identify the current issues with our searches and whether or not a standing search committee will in fact resolve those issues. Concerns were raised regarding who the Chair of the committee would be; what level of involvement the Library HR office should have with the committee; faculty responsibilities for recruiting and for understanding the search process; whether or not the Divisional structure of the Library is going to go away and if it does how that would affect membership on the Standing Search Committee; what happens to the Committee during a time of no searches; and the value of having some assistant faculty members on committees. EC’s concerns regarding how searches are conducted revolve around the need for consistency—having people familiar enough with the search process so that they run more efficiently, and the need to get the best pool of candidates. There is some thought that we need to be more aggressive in recruiting to entice good candidates into applying for open positions and we need to complete searches in a relatively short period of time.
Possible alternative (or additional) solutions aimed at addressing the issues presented include:
EC will take these comments into consideration and report back to the faculty with possible alternative recommendations.
Faculty Annual Review Process – Joanne Kaczmarek
As part of a review of the annual faculty review process the Faculty Review Committee has drafted changes to the Faculty Annual Report Guidelines and the Faculty Annual Review Scoring Guidelines. These changes are intended to standardize the documents provided by the faculty and to make the scoring process more clear. In particular, FRC is recommending reports to be structured in a way that eliminates a separate coversheet. Faculty are asked to review the documents prior to the faculty meeting and come prepared to provide suggested amendments.
Faculty Annual Review Report Guidelines – draft
Faculty Annual Review Scoring Guidelines – draft
A motion is put forth to adopt the (amended) Faculty Annual Report Guidelines and the Faculty Annual Review Scoring Guidelines for their use in the faculty annual review process.
(Comments provided by Pat Allen, Joanne Kaczmarek, Mary Laskowski, Kirstin Dougan, Lynne Rudasill, David Ward, Lura Joseph, JoAnn Jacoby, Mary Mallory, John Wagstaff, Nancy O’Brien, Chatham Ewing, and Jenny Emanuel)
Concerns were expressed about an ever-changing Annual Report format. Because many faculty already have a dossier and because of the requirements of an Annual Review of tenure and tenure-track faculty (Provost Communication # 21) the recommendation to use the same format for all faculty being reviewed is being recommended. The dossier and the Annual Report are two completely separate documents with one borrowing from the other. A dossier is primarily used for considering promotion and tenure. The Annual Report asks for content similar to that found in the dossier but it is used in determining annual compensation increases. Some liked the bulleted format of the Annual Report from the last couple of years. Under accomplishments the committee should define how much and what sorts of information they want to see. The faculty want explicit direction or instruction. For instance, should they also include research in progress?
A motion was made to use the same format for all faculty for the Annual Review process as per the Annual Review Report Guidelines found on the Library’s website at: http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/faculty/documents/index.html
Ad Hoc Items
Caroline Szylowicz announced that Bruce Swann is retiring and even though they won’t have a reception, there is a memory book at the circulation desk in Literatures and Languages. Please stop by and sign the book for Bruce.
Adjourned at 4:02pm with a motion by Becky Smith, seconded by Qiang Jin.