Library Office Notes

William Maher, Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee, presiding.

1.  Announcements (Bill Maher)

Maher reminded faculty of the Faculty-Academic Professionals retreat to be held May 22.   Sue Searing also reminded faculty of the anti-Chief Illiniwek petition, which she had presented at the April faculty meeting.  It will need to be forwarded to the committee examining the issue soon.

2.  The minutes of the April faculty meeting were approved by acclamation.

3.  Executive Committee Report (Bill Maher)

The EC has met twice since the last faculty meeting.  They received requests to fill two vacant departmental positions; drafted and reviewed justification statements for the creation of new positions; approved new guidelines for the hiring of visiting librarians; approved the replacement of one person on a visiting committee; approved granting two retirees emeritus status; discussed visiting committees and the amount of paper needed for promotion and tenure purposes; approved the shrinkage of a committee from 7 to 5 members; and performed Paula Kaufman's annual review.  In the near future, the EC will prepare new guidelines for internal use when recommending non-reappointment of untenured faculty.

4.  Faculty Review Committee Report (Beth Sandore)

The FRC has been working on 3 issues:  Completing the annual merit review process, revamping the evaluation process, and reviewing the vita of associate professors for promotion to full professor.  The committee reviewed 76 Annual Reports, and passed their recommendations to Paula Kaufman.  Sandore then asked for input on the question of whether the committee should send out a separate letter listing comments and showing which group the recipient was in, or whether this could be folded in to the salary letter that Kaufman sends out.  Opinions were mixed on the issue.  In favor of having two letters, people pointed out that the salary letters come out when the year is half over; having 2 separate letters makes changing the evaluation system easier; early and more extensive feedback is better; having one letter sent from the University Librarian's office suggests that the Librarian follows FRC's recommendations whereas she can take other issues into consideration; and grievances can be better dealt with earlier rather than later in the process.  The main argument for having one letter is the considerable amount of time it would save for FRC members.

The FRC has also been working on revamping the library's evaluation process.  Our current peer evaluation process does not include individual goal setting or self-evaluation, and the FRC is uncomfortable with evaluating people without this information.  They have not been able to come up with a good model to date, but will spend the summer discussing the issue.  They will present their conclusions in the fall.

Finally, Paula Kaufman asked the FRC to review the vita of associate professors for possible promotion to full professor and forward their comments to her.

In general comments following Sandore's report, several comments were made dealing with the issue of evaluation.  The same criteria should be used for all; we are drowning in process and any new procedure should involve less work, not more; the annual review process is less painful now because it has not been monkeyed with recently; and several people expressed concerns with developing and judging goal statements.  Sandore pointed out that Associate Provost Tina Gunsalus has indicated that the University Library's evaluation process is in need of change.

5.  Library Information Technology Committee Report (Tim Cole)

The LITC was officially formed in November 1999, and met for the first time in March.   Since then, it has met twice and will regularly report its activities at faculty meetings.  Committee members include Tim Cole, Tom Kilton, Bill Mischo, Sara Randall, Beth Sandore, Aaron Trehub, and Paula Watson.  Their task is to coordinate, advise, and help publicize projects dealing with new technologies.  As a beginning, they will create a Web site with an inventory of new and ongoing projects.  The LITC will be holding three to four seminars on new technologies each semester, beginning with this summer.  The first seminar, a tutorial on XML, will be held June 2.  They are looking for ideas for other workshops and may be able to get individuals from other campus units to present the workshops.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Schmidt
Faculty Secretary

Present:  Paula Kaufman, Margaret Chaplan, Tina Chrzastowski, Tim Cole, Bill Maher, Mary Stuart, Leslie Troutman, Mitzi Williams

Absent:  Marty Friedman

I.  Approval of the Past Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the May 8, 2000, meeting were approved.

II.  New Business

A.  Committee Assignments for FY01

Committee appointments were made for FY01.  Using the "Library Committee Volunteer Form" that was completed by volunteers, committees were updated for 2000-2001.  Inactive task forces and committees were deleted.  Paula Kaufman will follow through on the committee updates.  Those committees with divisional representation will be updated by calls to division coordinators for any changes.

Beginning 2000-2001, Division Coordinators will be added to the Committee Handbook.

B.  Emeritus Status Discussion

A retiree was considered for Emeritus status.  EC will be able to act on the proposal, when a letter of recommendation is received.

C.  External and Internal Evaluators for P & T papers

Lists of external and internal evaluators for P & T papers were considered.   There was a question about the role of the visiting committee for promotion to full professor.  Paula will talk to FRC about this; then she will follow through on the names suggested and letters to be sent out.

III.  Old Business

Because time ran out, old business on the agenda will be considered at the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Present:  Paula Kaufman, Margaret Chaplan, Tina Chrzastowski, Tim Cole, Bill Maher, Mary Stuart, Leslie Troutman

Absent:  Marty Friedman, Mitzi Williams

Paula Kaufman called the Special Budget Meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.  Bart Clark was present to discuss budget issues.  This meeting and the budget item on the agenda for the Administrative Council meeting were scheduled to go over commitments made between January 15 and the present that weren’t on the budget submitted in January.   These meetings are to discuss how the Library will make adjustments.

The budget for the coming year has three parts:

1.  2000 Budget, permanent dollars (any adjustments come out of it)
2.  2000 Budget, one million temporary dollars anticipated to become permanent (all dollars       have been committed with $100,000 flexibility to cover staff positions)
3.  2001 Budget requested from State and Campus combined dollars.

A fourth element of the budget is salaries which are in a separate salary package.

An amount of $50,000 is in the base ’99 Budget for faculty equity.  If it is not needed for faculty equity, it will allow some flexibility in other areas.

A total of approximately $1.9 million was requested from Campus:

$550,000 for electronic resources
$750,000 for paper collections
$450,000-470,000 for price increase on the State dollars
$200,000 for an Undergrad Information Mall (personnel dollars)

The total budget request from Campus and the State is a little under $6 million.   Spending for $2.7 million from the Campus in new dollars for staff, operations, and collections has been identified, but nothing can be done until the budget is approved.

The goal has been to have about a half million in the budget in non-recurring dollars for flexibility in any year.  Some of the money for flexibility comes from positions that end June 30 and remain vacant until August 20.

There was a $160,000 deficit payment last year; we need to pay only $40,000 this year to be on target, but it would be better to pay more.

End-of-the-year decisions were made to approve three positions in the Library to go from part-time to full-time.

The Acquisitions Serial System cost $225,000 in non recurring dollars and $13,000 in recurring dollars that is being spread over three years.  We intend to pay what we can this year out of this year’s budget, most of it out of next year’s budget, and a little out of the following year’s budget.

Three other new items that have come up are E-Reserves, the Cataloging Task Force Report that has budgetary implications, and a Jewish Studies’ request for a graduate assistant.  There are also other requests that continue to come in.

In 2001, there will be a request for an increase in student wages.  The 2001 Budget will request $50,000 or 7-8% to increase wages.  3% will be used to raise our minimum wage.  There is a goal to move to $6 for student wages with real differentials for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year graduate students.

The Budget Committee is working on staff upgrades.  Two centralized pools of money for staff upgrades and salary increases seem necessary, since they compete for the same dollars, causing a negative situation.  Staff salary increases should be based on the job.  Also, there is a goal of $40,000 for a minimum librarian salary with adjustments for those currently working here.

Everything for 2001 is built with priorities decided on in the Budget Planning Group, with the University Librarian making the final decisions.  EC requested an opportunity to discuss budget priorities in committee, and through the Vice Chair according to the statues.  Even though EC has provided full advice on the budget, EC has a role in continuing to advise on the budget.

A high priority of Paula’s is to supplement what the Campus gives us for promotions.  Another very high priority is an increase in travel money.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Present:  Paula Kaufman, Chair; Bill Brockman, Bob Burger, Margaret Chaplan, Tina Chrzastowski, Bart Clark, Alan Conrad, Barbara Henigman, Deloris Holiman, Lyn Jones, Betsy Kruger, Sara Randall, Karen Schmidt, Karen Wei, Joyce Wright

Absent:  Marianna Choldin, Janis Johnston, Barbara Jones, Diane Schmidt, Paula Watson

1.  Budget Discussion (Clark and Kaufman)

This discussion and the budget meeting with the Executive Committee are for the purpose of opening up the budget discussions to full interaction and participation, and for explaining Library commitments made toward the budget between January 15 and now.   More time will be spent next year to bring AC and EC into the budget planning process.

Information about the final Budget should be out this week.  The Budget is composed of three categories:  (1) Permanent budget for 2001, everything extra comes from this; (2) One million temporary budget we’ve received for this year; and (3) 2002 request.

The 2001 request will fold in the State request and the Campus request and should include additional salary dollars.  The 2001 request from the State included $550,000 for electronic resources, $750,000 for paper resources, and $200,000 for an information mall.

From Campus, the Library requested $2.7 million.  Priority one focuses on personnel; priority two, on some positions and operations budget; and priorities 3, 4, and 5, on collections.  The entire budget request is close to $6 million with $1.6 million in collection dollars.

The most noticeable change in the budget is the III Acquisition Serials amount of $225,000 in non-recurring and $13,000 in recurring funds spread over three fiscal years.   Additional money will be needed for the Cataloging Process Task Force requests, E-Reserves, and retirement payouts.

Paula mentioned high priorities that are being considered:  increases in student worker wages; differentials for GA wages for years 1, 2, and 3; a pool for staff reclassifications; additional dollars for promotions; and increased support of travel.

A proposal has been put together for an architectural planning study to look at four Library spaces:  the second floor of the Main Library and Bookstacks, Undergrad, Ricker, and Physics.  A high density storage facility has also been requested from the Provost.

The Budget Planning Group will go through all requests and priorities and come up with budget allocations based on the dollars actually received.

Paula reminded AC that the University has at least two programs that we’ve not taken advantage of:  the Faculty Excellence Program and the Target of Opportunity Program.  If we were to pursue and hire someone through those programs, it would not only improve our programs, but it would also add to the budget.

AC was also reminded that, according to the Strategic Plan, the two highest priorities of the Library are service and access.

2.  Orientation (Burger)

Bob Burger presented a proposal to resume a Library Orientation Program.  Cindy Kelly has looked at it, made suggestions, and is enthusiastic about it.  A basic orientation program will begin this summer.  It was suggested that we coordinate our training program with GSLIS.  AC endorsed the proposal.

3.  Cataloging Task Force Report (Burger and Henigman)

The forum on the Cataloging Task Force Report held June 1 was well attended.  Two areas of the report were questioned:  (1) the make-up of CPC and how it should be phased in and (2) moving people to Technical Services for cataloging.

Even though AC agreed that the idea of centralized cataloging was a good one, there was a lot of resistance to moving people to accomplish it.  They would rather give Barbara the person/people she needs to do original cataloging, rather than pulling people from the units for a few hours at a time.  If one original cataloger filled a vacant position and one new position was allocated, the unit could handle all currently received materials.  It was requested that Bob and Barbara amend the report to include recommendations made at this meeting, and at the end of the report include a time line and a budget sheet addressing costs of cataloging with four people and costs of cataloging with three people.

4.  "Tangible Digital Products" CD Policy (K. Schmidt)

"Recommendations of the CDC/EIRC Working Group on Electronic Resources," revised by David Griffiths, was discussed.  The purpose of this document was to identify problems and solutions, rather than finalize procedures.  It will be up to the Preservation Librarian to pursue the recommendations.  AC formally accepted the document with no objections.

5.  Summer Reference Statistics (Clark)

Bart Clark would like to run reference statistics during the eight-week summer session.   We’ve built reference statistics on one run in the fall semester and one in the spring.  He reported that he has intuitive statistics for the rest of the year.   It was agreed that it would be a good idea to do a one-week sweep this summer during the eight-week session and another sweep next year at a different time.

6.  Other Business

Karen Schmidt explained the flyer on "Environmental Fellows Program of the Environmental Council" that was distributed at a prior meeting.  Mitzi Williams asked her to distribute the flyer for the environmental studies advisory group.   Mitzi hosts their web site on the Vet Med home page.

Paula Kaufman is drafting a letter of application for DLF membership.

Paula reported on the CIC Directors meetings.  They were excited about finding ways to better deliver non-returnable items to users’ work stations; Betsy will be our representative on the task force that is forming.  The Mellon Foundation is interested in funding several archival depositories around the country.  The other item of great interest was electronic theses and dissertations.

Karen Schmidt reported on the Library Allocation Steering Committee which is made up of 18 members from around the campus.  They are looking at how library materials will be allocated.

Paula reported that LIT is meeting and has a very ambitious schedule.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.