Library Office Notes

Present:  Paula Kaufman, Chair; Bill Brockman, Margaret Chaplan, Tina
Chrzastowski, Bart Clark, Alan Conrad, Barbara Henigman, Janis Johnston, Jo Kibbee, Sara Randall, Diane Schmidt, Karen Schmidt, Paula Watson, Karen Wei, Joyce Wright

I.  Error Survey Report (Henigman)

Barbara Henigman distributed, ahead of time, copies of the Error Survey Report.   The results of the survey were discussed and will be forwarded to the Cataloging Task Force and Technical Services.  The results will be studied and incorporated into the workflow.  They will redo the survey in the summer.  She asked AC to send her suggestions and recommendations.

II.  Gateway Redesign Task Force (Randall)

Sara Randall reported on the issues shaping the proposed implementation of a Gateway Redesign Task Force.  There are technical, navigational, and download issues to address and resolve.  The task force would be composed of three or four people from the Library staff, and possibly a student and a faculty member, to work with her and the Library Web Master.  They would also draw information from established groups and from general public forums.  When the navigational design is ready, they will consider bringing in a graphic artist to help design the final product.  Projected implementation will be January 2001.

III.  Gifts, Grants, and Contracts Policy (Clark)

Bart Clark distributed the document, Oversight of Gifts, Grants, and Contracts Policy. Basically,  it is the same as the document the Library used previously, and it will bring things into conformity once again.  It is very important for everyone to follow the guidelines and procedures.  The Library needs to know when someone donates even one book.  Relationships can develop under the stewardship of the Development Office.   Sharon Kitzmiller is working on a flow chart for gifts; in the meantime, Lyn Jones should be notified of any gifts to the Library.

IV.  Reporting Vacation and Sick Leave (Clark)

Bart also led a follow-up discussion on reporting vacation and sick leave.  AC decided that GA’s will report monthly, using a paper form that supervisors will sign off on and turn in the 21st of the month.  GA’s should be encouraged to take their vacation time, so there is not an unbudgeted vacation pay out at the end of their appointment.  Bart’s office will send information and forms to the units.   Faculty will respond directly to an e-mail message sent quarterly.  Academic Professionals, visiting faculty, and part-time faculty will respond to a separate e-mail message also sent quarterly.  According to Campus policy, no response to the form or to the e-mail message will indicate that the maximum amount of vacation and sick leave for the period has been used.

V.  Services to Library Users with Disabilities (Kaufman)

The 1998 UIUC Library Universal Information Access Plan was distributed.   Currently, the Library has some services but there is no point person, and the services are not consistent and do not cover all the recommendations in the report.   DRES wants to work with the Library to close the loop on the report, but has no budget for it.  Facilities Programs has a budget and a person to monitor and upgrade facilities for use by people with disabilities, and Affirmative Action has people to monitor personnel issues, but there is no central oversight group.  Since time was running out at this meeting, it was decided to take up the issue at the next meeting.

VI.  Updates and Announcements

Retirement receptions and gifts were discussed.  When a faculty member is retiring and would like a reception, the Library will sponsor one and will provide a gift.   Lois Pausch and Nancy Anderson are retiring at the end of February; there will be a reception for them at Grainger on March 1 from 2:00-4:00 p.m.

Jo Kibbee reported that she went on a site visit to Cornell University.  There, she observed an on-line reference chat room manned from 1:00-5:00 p.m. and a "My Library" resource that individuals can use to build their own customized gateway to the library.  They are also planning an on-line catalog chat room.

A Scholarly Communication Group is starting to make advances on campus education.   They will invite library advisory committees to an open forum to talk about scholarly communication the third or fourth week in April.  AC will be invited to attend.  Some external speakers will be invited to talk at later forums on scholarly communications and changes in scholarly communications.

CCRC talked about the South Research Park and Library space.  The Provost is working on getting the money for the space which will house material that is currently stored all over campus.  The Program Planning and Facilities Management Reconfiguration Project has been
given a boost.  Some movement should take place within the next few months.  The Library Budget hearing on Thursday, February 17, went well.  The CCRC announced that the Main Library building has been nominated to the National Historic Register.  The building is already treated, as if it’s on the register.  2002 will be the 75th anniversary of the building occupancy, and 2004 will be the 75th anniversary of the official opening.

Visiting people on one-year contracts are seeking answers to questions about their status.  Some answers will be forthcoming in April; firm answers will be available in May.  The Library plans to hire permanent people to fill vacant permanent positions.

CODSULI (Council of Deans of State University Libraries in Illinois) is going back to IBHE to ask for a 10% increase rather than the 5% inflation increase.

Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Paula Kaufman began with a brief overview of the points raised at the AC retreat in the fall that led to the Restructuring Report.  Some areas they wanted studied and included in a report were:

· reduction of bureaucratic restraints,
· powers resting within the units and with the University Librarian,
· ways to evaluate units,
· ways to evaluate effectiveness of services in different departments,
· consistency in the Library as a whole,
· ways to allow people to act more freely and in a more timely manner,
· leverage resources to enable approaching and resolving issues.

Each Division Coordinator gave a summary of the discussion in her/his division.

Margaret Chaplan reported that her division discussed the role of the division coordinator and found little enthusiasm for another level of administration.  They asked if we needed a deputy university librarian position or at least fewer division coordinators.  There was consensus that if division coordinators have more responsibilities, they need to be full time. They had questions about how they would be selected.  There was concern about maintaining standards across divisions such as standards for salaries.  There was concern that this would be workable with fewer than nine coordinators with less administrative salary money involved.  If the coordinators do get a budget, what would they control?  They also discussed the evaluation issue.  They agreed that regular feedback on job performance was good, and that there is a need for an evaluation system with evaluation training and consistency.   The role of the FRC evaluation wasn’t clear, and they decided the plan wasn’t detailed enough for them to tell how it would affect them or for them to make a decision about it.  They would like to know more.

Tina Chrzastowski said her division agreed.  The report is too vague, and there was not enough detail to answer the questions her division has.  They were concerned about autonomy but agreed that bringing a level of accountability to all units was positive.  They also thought nine coordinators may be too many, that the model shows redundancy in administration and a top heaviness.  They would like some of the changes tabled until the new administrators (human resources, preservation, services) are hired, to see how that works and gradually make changes.  However, they agreed with the management and personnel training aspect of the report and wanted that to begin right away.  They also
wanted more information about how the coordinators would be selected and what their job descriptions would be.  There were mixed feelings about evaluations, and they want more details.

Bill Brockman said his division also agreed.  His division wants to maintain strength at the unit level, but there was support for the coordinators and for providing support for creativity in the units.  There was no support for installing another level of administration above the units, and there was confusion about the budget in the new plan.  There was little support for
management training and no firm feelings regarding evaluations and accountability.   There was concern about changes in the autonomy of the units; they thought units should remain distinct.

Diane Schmidt reported that her division considered the report vague and fuzzy, at this point. There was a lot of support for management and personnel training, but concern about the autonomy of the units and any attempt to take that away.  There was consensus that we need to do more regarding evaluations than we are doing now.  They were split over moving too quickly or too slowly, but most didn’t want to move too quickly.   There were no firm feelings against the plan, but there was some resistance to change.

Barb Henigman reported that the Technical Services unit has been through a lot of change and was pretty quiet about the report.  There was concern about the coordinator’s position becoming permanent; they like the idea of rotating the position, but agreed that it needs to be a full time position.  They agreed that more should be done regarding evaluations, and more training is important, especially for management and personnel.

Karen Wei commended the committee for doing a good job.  In her unit, some like placing responsibility down in the unit level and thought the coordinator should be able to support the goals of the unit with a budget from administration.  The coordinator should be elected, tenured, and evaluated.  They wanted to know how the Director of Services would be accountable to the units.  As far as evaluations are concerned, they were not comfortable with the unit head or the coordinator doing a written report for faculty in their division.  Their basic concern was about consistency across units.

Jo Kibbee reported there was no consensus in her division.  Some felt that if the plan goes forward, the number of divisions needs to be considered.  The coordinator position should be full time, and nine full time coordinators with nine units would be too many.  Some felt things were moving too fast and that nothing was really wrong with the way things are.  They were concerned that the goals will impinge not only on unit autonomy, but also on individual autonomy.  There was much support for the position of Director of Services, and they saw the person as a leader who could talk to the divisions and units with oversite responsibilities and with more authority than coordinators.

Janis Johnston reported that she and Jane Williams had a brief discussion, and the proposal doesn’t look radical to them.  They are a division with one unit, so they don’t have the tension other divisions have.  They agreed that it’s reasonable to provide accountability and allow the Library to move forward with new goals and initiatives.

Barbara Jones said there was some opposition to the report in her division, but mostly resignation that changes are needed.  There was consensus that the coordinator should be more than quarter time, and the current coordinators have a certain amount of conflict of interest and may favor their own units.  Regarding the budget, they agreed that more unit or division control is needed but they did not agree on which.  They agreed that the division needs to consider services more and that a different evaluation system is needed.  In restructuring considerations, they want to emphasize their multidisciplinary nature and look at functions, rather than subject areas; they have close ties to several divisions in different ways and are not sure where they fit.

Joyce Wright reported that her library agreed that it was a very positive document. However, they are concerned about evaluations.

Paula Watson had concern about how the different levels of people all fit together.   She also endorsed evaluations, along with evaluation training.

For staff, Alan Conrad commented that people view the report positively; they are highly supportive of management training and training, in general.  Some thought the report had many good ideas, but it was vague in how to implement them.

Other discussion included questions about goal setting training, good management training, and regular feedback.

Bart Clark observed that division comments focussed on the coordinator, rather than benefits or disadvantages to the divisions or how they could work together.  He was concerned about Library with the capital "L."

Barbara Jones recommended that divisions have a retreat like Special Collections had at Levis Faculty Center.  Bob Burger facilitated the event, and she felt this group sense will lead to Library with the capital "L."

There was concern about having stronger divisions that may grow farther apart.

 There was also concern about how evaluations fit into the salary determination process and the FRC evaluation of job performance.  There was concern that the Library wouldn’t be reviewed like the rest of campus.  Paula Kaufman said that there will be new directives from the Provost on goal setting, evaluations, and salaries that we could come in line with.  There would be checks and balances in the units to keep people working together as Library with a capital "L."

There was agreement on the six steps outlined in Part 3 of the report.  Committees are already working on these points, and they are moving along.

Paula Kaufman summarized the comments.  She heard concern about the evaluation system and changes in the role of division coordinators.  She heard strong support for training and some support for an evaluation system that included work performance, as opposed to research or service performance.  She heard some support for unit and division goal setting and a plug for division retreats as a mechanism to begin building relationships in the divisions.  There were also questions about accountability vs. autonomy and advocacy, and the prospect of having fewer divisions.  She asked the structure committee to take these points into consideration and consider whether to make alternative recommendations at this time.

The Division Coordinators were asked to go back to the divisions and discuss the six points in the report under "The committee also identified several unresolved issues that must be considered throughout this process and resolved by the end of it."   When considering the six points, they should consider Library cultures, Division cultures, and Unit cultures.

Paula Kaufman encouraged the divisions to take a retreat day to discuss these issues and said the Library would support the retreats.

Present:  A. Conrad, J. Gammon, H. J. Kim, C. Kopp, P. Lindell, L. Roberts,
A. Schoenberg, B. Trumpinski-Roberts, D. Walter, G. Witte

Guest:  Bob Burger

I.  Minutes of the February 23, 2000, meeting were revised and approved.

II.  Reports

A.  Admin. Council - regular meeting canceled; special meeting was held to continue the discussion on possible administrative restructuring.  High points discussed were the continued vagueness of the current document, improbability that a division coordinator could also serve as a unit head, what are current divisions doing, who is a person accountable to, favorable outlook on management training for faculty, and divisions formed on function rather than subject area.

B.  Faculty meeting - no meeting.

C.  Library Reconfig. - no meeting.

D. Strategic Planning Committee - Gil Witte distributed a copy of the work cycle for the Committee.  The next meeting was to be immediately after the LSSC meeting, so nothing new to report on tasks.

E.  Cataloging Task Force - the process of a book from receipt in Acquisitions through Marking was reviewed.

III.  Updates/Announcements

A.  Training sub-committee presented their progress on a training survey to be sent to each staff.  The schedule of the process and other aspects of training were discussed.

B.  By-Law revisions - it is not felt that there needs to be major revisions of by-laws at this time.  However, the time-frame for elections should be revised, in that the nomination portion should begin shortly after Thanksgiving break to allow time before the ballots are distributed in January.  Discussions regarding division structure is tabled until this summer or until any changes are made to the Library administrative structure.

IV.  New Business

Questions with Bob Burger:

A.  nothing new on the Head of Preservation

B.  the position announcement has gone out for Human Resources Officer and interviews should begin soon

C.  training program - we asked if the money from administration available for training had to be spent by June 30, 2000.  Bob indicated that he did not believe so.

- also indicated that work release should be given for staff members attending training pertaining to their job duties.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Gammon
Transcriber