Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

Meetings 2013-2014

Meetings 2012-2013

Meetings 2011-2012

Meetings 2010-2011

Meetings 2009-2010

Meetings 2008-2009

Meetings 2007-2008

Meetings 2006-2007

Meetings 2005-2006

Meetings 2004-2005

Meetings 2003-2004

Meetings 2002-2003

Meetings 2001-2002

Faculty Meeting Minutes 07-25-2012

MINUTES

Faculty Meeting

July 25, 2012

3:00-4:30 pm

Illini Room B – Illini Union

 

Call to Order

 

Standing Items:

  Adoption of the Agenda – Paula Kaufman

 

Approval of Minutes- Paula Kaufman

Minutes were approved with a motion by Becky Smith and seconded by Merinda Hensley.

 

Introductions  - Paula Kaufman

 

In addition to the introductions, Paula thanked Joanne Kaczmarek for her tenure as faculty secretary and Lori Mestre for stepping in a month early to take on the role.

 

Report of the University Librarian

 

 

 

 

One focus area is on understanding the data communities.  Major questions they are addressing are:

 

1. What is the landscape of data communities?

2. In which cases is the value proposition of DPN germane to the data communities?

3. How would DPN engage effectively with the communities that most require long-term preservation data? The committee working on that is being facilitated by Abby Smith Rumsey.

 

Another focus area is on replicating the nodes:  The premise behind DPN is for the academic community to take ownership of preserving academic output.  The framework being proposed is to use different methods to replicate output in order to ensure long term.  There are five replicating node candidates. Each relocating node will be presented by an organization that is capable of evaluating technical feasibility and interfacing with the consortium or organization that governs the replicating node.

 

The DPN project will fund the time for technical leads from each organization to define and prove the replicating node approach. Participants include:

 

Academic Preservation Trust, Chronopolis, UC San Diego, Hathi Trust, University of Michigan, Stanford Digital Repository, Texas Digital Library

 

The objective of this focus is to create a working proof of concept of at least three diverse replicating nodes. The initial proof of concept work is being called DPN 1.0 and will include the following scope of requirements:  Transport software, Audit and verification process, Metadata requirements, Failure and recovery of contributing node scenarios, Injest requirements for each node, and Security.

 

There is a short time period for DPN. Chancellor Phyllis Wise is interested.  Ade and Peter Schiffer, incoming Vice Chancellor for Research, are also interested in data management.  There is a question of whether this model will extend to a large amount of data by scholars.  Currently they are working on text and video.  This requires a big financial investment–perhaps as much as one million to two million dollars a year per institution. The Chancellor has asked Mike Anderchak to find the money. Currently there are 60 members in DPN and the uptake is faster than anticipated so it might not cost that much in the long run.  

 

Questions:

 

Budget Report (Paula Kaufman)

 

 

Anticipated Expenditures of the Money

 

We will not add new money to the staff pool; the academic pool takes priority this year.  Every time someone leaves a position, that position is looked at carefully and prioritized against all requests.  Some positions won’t be filled.  This money comes from the students so we need to use the money for what students need and request. One example is that there is a need for staffing for the late night hours and we agreed to fund late night hours for students, so we need to consider student needs and our commitment to them in our decisions.

 

Paula reminded everyone that it is important to keep in mind that the Library didn’t get any cuts, whereas others did.  In response to questions she explained that the university is differentiating among two types of academic units; those that are self funded and those that are not (like law and business, compared to LAS).  Self funded units have deeper cuts than the non-self-funded.  She also responded to a question regarding the current year’s Library IT fee money, reiterating that the money was split between CITES and the Library (as described above).  In regards to an increase in the Library budget, Paula said that the only increase the Library has seen for some time has been through the Library IT fee program. The exception is for a salary increase this year, 2 ½ % pool for salary and .5% for Compression Market Equity and Retention (CMER) for faculty. “Assessments” cover faculty excellence, spousal/dual career hires, and TOP hires. Our Collections budget has always been protected and the Provost continues to protect our collections budget. Thanks to the Library Fee, we did not have cuts this year. She explained that those working on the budget tried to spend ½ percent to address inequitable areas since we can’t hire people in at a salary that would be equitable, so we are trying to remedy that as best we can with available funds.  She also said that there will be an additional ½ percent for CMER and that there is also a 2.5% increase available for APs. Letters indicating raises will be forthcoming (before August 16).  For professional development and travel money, Paula said they will know in the next few weeks if there will be an increase over the base. (Update-On July 26, 2012 Paula sent out an email letting faculty and APs know that the Library will again provide an additional $1000 in travel support for Library Faculty and Library AP employees in FY13; the year that began 7/1/12. We're using one-time money to fund this program.  She added a reminder that similar funding may not be available in the future.)

 

In response to the number of those who retired this year, Paula mentioned there were 10 faculty, 14 staff, and 2 APs. She also talked briefly about the challenges of having 20 searches at one time and the time delay in doing replacement searches.

 

Executive Committee Discussion Items

Functional Specialist Roles and Responsibilities Group

 

David Ward led the discussion to get feedback on ideas for extending the Subject specialist roles and responsibilities report to those who aren’t subject specialists (e.g. functional specialists).

 

David asked for thoughts on key elements from the initial report that might be missing and that we want to address and suggestions for the Executive Committee (EC) of how to build on the document and who should be part of the process.  David mentioned that in the report there are different sections that cover various areas of the job.  It is intended to be a laundry list that goes across all positions (although it may not cover every element in every job).The key areas that are covered are: Engagement, reference, instruction, collection development, and management.  Within each larger area there is a list of different types of activities that would support the key areas. Activities and models from other University Libraries, such as Duke and Minnesota were included.  The report was submitted December 23 and then a final report was being developed with a suggestion for the process be looked at for other areas to include.

 

Lynne Rudasill, who also helped craft the report mentioned that some of the background was to be able to provide assistance for the, then, 20 upcoming positions, in order to offer some kind of rubric or standardized list when writing position descriptions.  It could also include possible competencies for subject specialists and those articulating new positions and for ideas of what they wanted to include.

 

Cindy Ingold asked if, in the discussion and acceptance of document, there was any thought of using this in the faculty review process and professional development for the individuals?  She commented how in her previous library, as part of the annual review they would do their own goals etc. for that year to fold into the review for the following year.  She wondered if a document like this might help guide and focus people through that process and if that had been part of the discussion.

 

Lynne Rudasill, who rejoined EC last year, mentioned that the concept of both faculty review and Promotion and Tenure processes were under discussion (and still may be).  She said they had talked about the fact that there is a rubric for service and research for the Faculty Review Committee (FRC), but not librarianship.  She reiterated that this was not meant to be a check list for librarians, but to help guide the thinking when writing the annual report, especially to indicate areas where the faculty member was particularly effective. 

 

David mentioned that this might help FRC compare apples to apples. He then asked for ideas of who the people are that EC should talk to to broaden this out and should it be subject and functional specialists? After a discussion of the importance of thinking more broadly about functional positions (e.g. functional specialists, technical specialists, digital specialists) across the libraries (and not just within a division), there was a suggestion to have divisions work on some of this and then go broader (giving examples perhaps of things that are valued highly or that are deemed to be valued highly and essential to work). 

 

David: will discuss this as part of EC in the next couple of months and will keep everyone updated.  He reminded everyone to review the document (http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/exec/supplement/s2011-2012/SubjectSpecialistTaskForceReport.html) and if they see things that are missing or that should be included to email him (dh-ward@illinois.edu).

 

Lightning Round

"Institutionalizing and Sustaining Diversity Recruitment in Library Settings" (Jim Hahn)

 

Jim Hahn summarized some of the work being done on a Library Innovation grant that he is working on with four students he recruited (from diverse backgrounds with technology backgrounds).  He focused on recruiting students with IT backgrounds (from 2 year colleges or with minors in computer science (CS) because of the knowledge from his previous experience working with students and knowing what students with practical computer backgrounds could contribute.  He felt they could produce excellent work in a short time and be valuable to library.  He then trained the students to develop Android Apps, and they are involved in creating new library services. He described a little of the work environment of the students and that they work side by side with other grant participants (several grant projects occurring in the space, including a software group consisting of software developers and even Ph.D. students, with sometimes 8-9 individuals together), with topics cross pollinating.  He explained that he has funding through fall and is putting together an IMLS grant with hopes to extend this.  He is also meeting with Beth Sandore to see how this type of effort might work its way into standard work. 

 

Jim also offered that when they roll out the services there is a possibility that they could be plugged into other library components and mentioned that if anyone sees something they might like and may want in their unit to let him know

 

He invited everyone to the student presentations to be held Friday, July 26 at 3:00 in the Undergraduate Library (and promised bagels). 

 

Paula Kaufman thanked Jim and summarized with how this is an excellent example of innovation grants.  She mentioned that there were no submissions this round for innovation grants and said that she will be putting out another call for them, the deadline is the end of December.  She reminded everyone that we have money to invest and this is exactly the kind of thing we want to invest in—something to seed proposals for the next thing and to improve our services.

 

New Business

None

 

Announcements

 

Adjournment at 3:57 p.m.