Faculty Meeting Minutes 09-19-2012
September 19, 2012
Call to Order
Adoption of the Agenda – Paula Kaufman
Approval of Minutes - Paula Kaufman
Minutes were approved with a motion by Mary Laskowski, seconded by Kirstin Dougan.
Introductions - Paula Kaufman
Beth Sandore introduced Jim Dohle, new director for IT production services. Sue Searing introduced Jen-chien Yu, the new assessment coordinator. Both are members of the academic professional staff.
Report of the University Librarian - Paula Kaufman
Paula received proposals for the Merrick fund and the Innovation fund. EC will review and make recommendations to Paula about the Innovation fund. Paula will need to follow up on the Merrick proposals because they are for three times the amount of money that is available.
Peter Schiffer, the new Vice Chancellor for Research, has been meeting with every dean. Paula and Beth Sandore have been discussing the importance of data management with him. The campus Data Stewardship Committee is putting together a proposal that Peter will take to the Chancellor and Provost. Recommendations need to be in by the end of December to make our program more robust and staffed at an appropriate level. Paula also stressed the importance of all of us to understand what data management is, so that when we work with faculty and students we know the basic concepts of “what to do with data” and where to refer people. She also encouraged us to take advantage of the various workshops and opportunities available and to learn how the library is playing a major role in data management.
The new provost is working with the deans differently than previous provosts by seeking input and engaging the deans in the major issues on campus and decision making process. They are mapping out an agenda for the year.
The Dean of Libraries position is one of four Dean searches being launched this year. The others are: Dean of Engineering, Dean of the College of Vet Med, and the Dean of the College of ACES. No decisions have yet been made about the other interim Dean positions, such as the Dean of Labor and Employment Relations, Dean of GSLIS and Dean of College of Media.
Executive Committee Discussion Items (Chris Prom)
- Update on Executive Committee Business
Because the posting of approved minutes had fallen behind, Chris sent out the last three minutes by email. Any questions or clarifications should be sent to him. Brief comments included that:
- EC changed the Service Advisory committee into a User Services Advisory committee. They developed a new charge and appointed membership.
- A planning team discussed issues for a Humanities Services Hub that was approved to be put into place. EC is waiting for feedback on other space proposals.
- The Dean search is continuing. A small working group consisting of Chris Prom, David Ward and the AULs are going through the strategic plan and doing an implementation grid to find gaps to fill in and will send out a draft with comments
- There is a question of whether to do a new review process for the AULs because there have been comments that the previous process hasn’t been productive and useful. There will be more conversations regarding this.
- Upcoming business: EC is looking at finishing up a process that was begun to put together a search procedures manual.
- Discussion of Draft Policy 'Head, Coordinator, and Assistant in Faculty Job Titles: Definitions and Use'
- The proposal for title changes is to help shape future job titles and is not meant to apply retroactively, but may provide a rubric that can be updated. There was some initial conversation at the meeting regarding title changes and the need to be clear that not everything fits into one definition (one size does not fit all). A suggestion was made that there needs to be flexibility with title changes as new positions are considered. Please send concerns by email to Chris and EC will discuss them at an upcoming meeting before the final iteration of the document.
- Dean of Libraries Search Process
- Chris led a discussion regarding the Dean of Libraries search process. This search is late getting going so we will need to expedite our work. EC will meet with the Provost and Barb Wilson, Associate Provost for Academic Resources on October 19 to discuss the process and search committee membership. The Provost would like suggestions for membership in the committee as well as some direction about desired qualities to look for in a librarian and things to factor into a search narrative.
- Search committee: So far a chair has not been named but we should see it in our purview to offer advice. There was a question of whether or not a recruiting firm or search firm would be used. Because of significant political concern the state has made it difficult to use search firms. Instead, it will be up to us to be ambassadors and recruit candidates, as well as to educate the search committee about the environment here and that librarians are faculty members. There was concern about whether a candidate could have a free and frank discussion with search committee members. We also need to consider how we will describe “us” so others will want to work here. There is still a stereotypical image of the library (how difficult it is to work here and get promoted), so we need to get the qualities down. We need to talk about the strong points of our faculty culture and sell that and describe ourselves accurately as a very innovative library in the kinds of things we do and give examples. We could be sketching broadly what our trajectory could be, i.e. google digitization, etc. and that we have some key decisions about our trajectory and we should let others know our paths and that they could be a leader to help us in our endeavors.
- Suggestions for members of the search committee. Send specific names to Chris Prom or an EC member including why this person would be a good member. EC may not have a formal guideline or grid but a short set of criteria to evaluate. EC will need to discuss if there is adequate diversity represented, although the Provost makes the final decision. It is not clear at this time how many members will be on the search committee. Some suggestions: two members from the library (a seasoned faculty member and a young faculty member); a library staff member, and a member from GSLIS. A concern was voiced that it would be a mistake to lead with the suggestion of only two faculty members, rather, we should start with calling for at least three, and we should consider looking at the models used for search committees for other deans and seek a comparable level of our faculty membership. We need to make sure the search committee has a balance of subject areas from campus as well. It would be good to have students on the search committee, such as a student member from the University Library’s Student Advisory Council or senate committee.
- The library should also have some thoughts about the actual interview and who should be in meetings with the candidates (especially including library faculty members and a faculty only meeting)
- Feedback to Provost pertaining to qualities for candidates: Some questions to consider are—What type of qualities do we want in a Dean of Libraries? What challenges is the Library facing? What are our selling points? What are some highlights about the campus? What do we want to look for?
- Look at UCLA or Michigan for their recent postings; someone that comes from a Library or Information Science background like UCLA; rather than an economist hired at Michigan? Need to explain the distinction to the Provost of a Library background versus other experience.
- What we do want: a collaborative, intellectual leader who is skilled and committed to building the intellectual capacity of the faculty and advancing the field of librarianship. Someone who has the experience and success at looking at new endeavors and creative ways of bringing resources and fundraising. Want someone with significant budgetary experience at campus level and familiar with budget making and understanding how it plays out in various settings. Someone with a balance between past experience and a future way of thinking (forward thinking). Someone with campus leadership experience and ability to work well with other deans and advocate for the causes of the library—prepared to take on the political tensions on campus. Needs to be both an effective collaborator and competitor with the other deans. Want someone who is also in tune and aware of what is happening within the library and within the various units and with the various personnel. Need someone who also builds partnerships (both internally and externally), including campus, nationally and globally. Someone who has the view that the UIUC library is at the center of all things happening, but someone who continues the strong relationship we have with GSLIS. Need someone who doesn’t just see the library as crucial to supporting the teaching and research mission of the institution but also teaches and does research and sees it as a major mission. It is also important to have a thoughtful visionary and a thorough leader in the areas we are interested in, including internationally. We want the next dean to help us shape the vision with us of the next library. We already have some thoughts and would want the dean to help us with the trajectory.
- What to avoid: someone who’s claim to fame is as an academic administrator- or someone who has a mandate of a wholesale restructuring of library without thinking what the library is about.
- Other: we need to make sure that we identify things that are very important to us as a library that resonate with the campus, such as strong synergies between the library as a teaching organization coupled with providing services and access to resources in support of the education research mission. We need to make sure our list is not so distinct and opposite of what the provost office and other faculty they consult with would recommend. We need to choose our words carefully. In addition to wanting someone who is a good administrator, manager and good with budgets, we also want someone who is a good leader, advocate and who has a deep understanding for scholarship and the scholarly endeavors of our faculty.
- We also need to be careful how we present our profile (to communicate the dynamic, vibrant work and activity that goes on here) including our partnerships with the CIC and CARLI. Need to have a list of things we want to project and show pertaining to how we are committed and the exciting results. The library needs to take the lead and draft this profile (~7 pages) and have it ready for the provost, rather than letting it be drafted by others. Chris said he would go back and have EC assign faculty and subgroups to develop this before the Oct. 19 date so the university is ready to move forward. If you are interested in helping out with the profile etc. let Chris know so you can be involved. Please send additional ideas about the search to Chris or EC.
Advancement Office Update (Vicki Tremble)
Vicki thanked everyone for past contributions and assistance and provided an update on some of the current and future activities of the Advancement Office, including some guests coming to tour the libraries, recent gifts, and a U of I foundation meeting next week(with the library to be part of the gift announcement). Vicki also reminded everyone to send items to the office for the “Library is Looking For” column of the Friend’s newsletter because about 50% of those items are picked up by donors. She also said that she and others from the Advancement office would love to come to division meetings so they can learn more about what’s going on in the divisions and better be able to share that with possible donors.
Card Catalog Project Update and Discussion (Tom Teper)
Michael Norman, Joann Jacoby, Jeff Schrader, Sue Searing, Cherié Weible and Tom have worked for some time on plans for cosmetic improvements to the second and third floor hallways. In order to proceed the card catalog needs to be moved. The question is whether then to move it back when finished or do something else with it. There are four parts of card catalog: serial record, shelf list, general, and thesis file. Parts are used in a limited basis and large portions are not being used (the general catalog). They are very out of date, cards pulled out, inaccurate… They are developing plans to move the serial record and thesis files to room 200, the shelf list to the subbasement of stacks (because it does get used ) and discard the general section. The plan is to discard cards from the general catalog and aggregate the matching cabinets in room 200 to transfer things to the cabinet. The cabinets not going there or the subbasement would be surplused. The goal is to complete this by December.
Feedback: How to most effectively communicate this to the rest of the library. They have begun developing a card catalog FAQ for people to hand out and for local notes for people.
- There was a question regarding the efforts that have been made to make sure that unique items in the card catalog have been transferred? Then perhaps communicating that information will help any concerns. Michael Norman responded that they’ve done samples and they are confident that there is 99% to 100% representation. JoAnn Jacoby did some calculations with the amount being closer to 99.996% of all cards currently online. There may be some Bulgarian series that may not be in as individualized analyzed titles, but they are present as series. It was suggested that the Library think of a phrase to let people know about the move (rather than “getting rid of”). One suggestion was “we are reconfiguring the arrangement”. Another suggestion was to mention we are “rationalizing or modernizing” the catalog (rather than reconfiguring).
- Another suggestion was to provide a written document that provides the appraisal criteria, the basis for keeping catalog records and how implemented, an explanation of how it will work in process (the 1% loss) and that this is being done for reasons other than just aesthetic reasons. This could also include an assurance that the library had identified the things that were unique and being maintained. There was reference to a project that CPS did in 2002 when the catalog was relocated that could be useful for this document and move. Another point that could be made is that most of our peer institutions removed their card catalogs more than a decade ago. The way we present it should be that we make it a non-issue. There was even a question of why we want to publicize this and bring attention to it. The concern is the possible repercussions on campus if we do this without communicating it. Additionally, it was noted that the university depends on the library to keep track of books, scholarship and is responsible to students. We need to communicate that we already have a good record of this information online (or elsewhere) and that the card catalog is now redundant.
- There was concern to make sure cards that need to be safeguarded are so, that people don’t just take the cards.
Lightning Round (Jennifer Hain Teper)
Jennifer summarized the work that the Faculty Review Committee and the Promotion and Tenure Committee had done the past two years to provide full documented procedures for 1) the appointment of new faculty as associate or full professor, and 2) the preparations for associate professors seeking promotion to full professor. The documents now provide in writing what had been occurring in practice. They now make the process visible to all, including explanations of what documentation is needed for each process, the timeline and how EC and FRC and others are involved in process. These will be posted to the FRC and PTAC websites. There was encouragement for associate professors to view the documents and work towards full professor, along with a suggestion of modifying the document to clarify the timeline of waiting a year if not granted full professorship.
- Campus Charitable Fund Drive Sue Searing is now the new library leader of the fund. She will send an email regarding this.
- Beth Woodard is the library representative for management and negotiation. They have been in negations for 15 months now. Monday they got a tentative agreement for 3700. 698 is still in negotiation.
Adjournment at 4:29