Library Office Notes

Charge:

The 1998-99 Strategic Planning Task Force produced a Strategic Plan for the Library that covers FY2000-FY2004.  Placed in the context of a shared vision for the Library, the strategic plan sets the Library’s direction, orders its priorities, and sets specific goals and objectives to which all division and unit plans will be linked. Because strategic plans are organic and flexible, requiring measurement, evaluation, and continuous fine-tuning, the Library must be diligent in keeping it alive as the centerpiece of all of its activities and decisions.

The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is charged with measuring and evaluating the plan’s elements, reviewing the plan for the subsequent fiscal year to ensure its currency and relevance (making adjustments where appropriate), and developing additional priorities and strategies for the fifth year of the plan.  In addition, SPC is responsible for creating and keeping current an analysis of environmental factors that will impact the Library’s ability to operate both presently and in the future.   The University Librarian and other senior library administrators are responsible both for the successful implementation of the plan’s elements and for timely reports on outcomes.

The SPC’s work must be broadly consultative, sharing with the Library Faculty and other Library staff all relevant documentation, holding open sessions in which to gather input and a sense of the Faculty’s priorities, and seeking reviews of draft documents before they are submitted for final approval.  Consultation with Library users, through the Senate Library Committee and other Library advisory groups and new mechanisms, is critical to the ultimate success of the Library’s undertakings.

No one can predict the future with complete accuracy.  Therefore, the Library’s strategic plan must be marked by flexibility and agility.  The Library cannot afford to pass by new opportunities nor to not stop specific activities, even if they have not been articulated clearly in the plan.

SPC will begin its work by determining an appropriate annual work schedule that will guide its activities throughout the year.

Composition:

The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is a permanent group with rotating membership comprised of representatives from the Executive Committee, the Administrative Council, and the library faculty-at-large as well as one representative each from the academic professionals and staff in the library.  The Committee reports to the University Librarian.

Membership:

Alvan Bregman, Human Resources
Bob Burger, Area Studies
Tim Cole, Physical
Barbara Henigman, Technical Services Team
Janis Johnston, Law
Barbara Jones, Special Collections
Tom Kilton, Arts and Humanities
Sara Randall, Academic
Lisa Romero, Social Sciences
Diane Schmidt, Life Sciences
Aaron Trehub, Central Public Services
Gil Witte, Staff Steering

Present:  Paula Kaufman, Chair; Alvan Bregman, Bill Brockman, Bob Burger, Tina Chrzastowski, Bart Clark, Alan Conrad, Barbara Henigman, Deloris Holiman, Janis Johnston, Barbara Jones, Jo Kibbee, Nancy O’Brien, Sara Randall, Diane Schmidt, Karen Schmidt, Susan Schnuer (for Marianna Choldin), Paula Watson, Joyce Wright

1.  Fine Waiving Guidelines

Lynn Wiley was present to review the Fine Waving Guidelines that she has drawn up for consistency in dealing with borrowers throughout the Library.  These guidelines are necessary because of new policies resulting from DRA.  She recommended using the Fine Waving Guidelines until the end of this semester.  Next semester, she recommended establishing an appeals board because of the number of graduate students being fined and because some of the fines are large, up to $500.

The Fine Waving Guidelines will go out electronically to all divisions to forward to their staff members.  There are workshops regarding fines for those who need to know more.  ILCSO also has guidelines, and there has been an effort to alert borrowers to different policies in other libraries.  Policies are uniform for DRA libraries, and any DRA terminal library can discharge books.

Lynn will come back at a later time to discuss hand written vs. electronic interlibrary loan requests.

2.  Netcat5 Issues

Barbara Henigman presented some guidelines for Netcat5 security.  There are many limitations of the system and a need for intensive training.  She recommends that people who work with Netcat5 should be qualified, trained, have it in their job description, and use the system a specified amount of time in order to be proficient. It’s a complicated process, is not user friendly, and is very difficult to do unless the person works on the system regularly to keep abreast of the process.

Barbara recommended a case-by-case evaluation/clearance of those who work on the system.  Paula Kaufman established that all agreed that we will adopt the guidelines with negotiations, where necessary, and revisit the issue in six months. Barbara will get an application form out and will put it on LIBNews.

3.  Retreat Planning

The Admin Council retreat at Allerton Conference Center will begin at 9:00 a.m. and close at 3:30 p.m.  Barbara Jones, Barbara Henigman, Alvan Bregman, and Paula Kaufman (ex officio) will meet to draw up an agenda for the day.  Some issues they will consider are:

· how the group is going to work together;
· history of how the group functioned and what has worked in the past;
· delegating authority;
· working toward a common Library goal;
· an evaluation and incentive system that works;
· a statement on why the AC exists;
· Deputy University Librarian and Executive Committee and duplication of effort;
· role of Division Coordinators;
· how do we look at the Library as a whole as opposed to units; how do we
develop a concept of libraries vs. library units.

4.  Awards Program

There was agreement that an awards program has to be handled very carefully to a positive event.  After discussing several ideas, it was decided to have a committee look around at other departments on campus, investigate what other ARL libraries are doing, and present ideas to the group.  The committee will consist of Paula Watson, Joyce Wright, and three more members (two staff and one faculty).  The committee will report back to the group in a couple of months.

5.  Use of library list serves for personal agendas

While there was concern about appropriate use of the list serve, it was agreed that no one has seriously abused its use.  Most people follow university guidelines for employee behavior:  no sexual harassment, political statements, or church related messages.  While personal use of e-mail is similar to personal use of University telephones, there are policy statements for the use of phones but not for e-mail. Paula will be looking at general policies for e-mail at the University level.

6.  Announcements

Sara Randall explained that ILCSO has formed a group (on which she is serving) to look at possible alternatives to DRA.  If a new system is to be implemented, it will not be before Summer 2001.

Deloris Holiman answered questions about the handouts from the last meeting.    While summer salaries are unfunded by Campus, they are funded by the Library.

Alvan Bregman will send out a memo on sabbatical leaves to go in LON.  The new
deadline for getting materials in at the divisional level is November 1 and for getting materials in at the Campus level, December 1.

Paula Kaufman said there was not yet an agenda for this week’s Council of Deans
meeting.  Highest priority of Campus is to restore faculty positions.  The Library is second on the list, and improving faculty salaries is also very high.

The Senate Committee on the Library met September 29.  Budget allocations, the budget for next year and service profiles were discussed.  SCL agreed to co-sponsor a series of Campus discussions about scholarly communications issues.

Paula has met with the individual members of the Admin. Council and Executive Committee.  She will summarize the themes that surfaced, as well as those that did not, to present to the group for discussion at a later meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, October 18, 1999

 Present:  Paula Kaufman, Chair; Alvan Bregman, Bill Brockman, Bob Burger, Tina Chrzastowski, Alan Conrad, Barbara Henigman, Deloris Holiman, Barbara Jones, Lyn Jones, Nancy O’Brien, Sara Randall, Diane Schmidt, Karen Schmidt, Susan Schnuer (for Marianna Choldin), Lynn Wiley (for Jo Kibbee), Joyce Wright

1.  Paperless Interlibrary Loan.

Lynn Wiley was present to discuss the recommended new paperless Interlibrary
Loan policy. C urrently only about 4% of the requests are handwritten, so most
things are coming in electronically.  There are issues about keyboards and net
Ids that will be easy to remedy.  Some patrons are resisting electronic
options, and they are trying to educate those people to use the most optimal
method.  She wants the unit heads to help convince them that electronic really
is the best method.  She will have two forms this fall that explain the options and recommends the CIC Vel request form.  IRRC will put up a sign that paperless is going to happen in January and withdraw blank forms gradually.  They won’t turn away anyone and will refer them to units and other places around campus for help. Paula Kaufman suggested an article for campus wide distribution.  Lynn and Lyn Jones will work on it after the Reston event.

2.  Possible configurations that might be implemented as part of our migration to a new ILCSO system.  Sara Randall led a discussion of possible configurations. ILCSO has set up a Systems Assessment Task Force to look at Taos and other systems.  Some staff would prefer to have our own system, or to be able to configure it to our satisfaction, but we are very much tied to ILCSO.  The money as well as other benefits from being a part of the consortium is very important to the Library, and our active participation in ILCSO is important to the University.  

As she begins to look at vendors, Sara is gathering information about what our people want from a new system.  She suggested we probably want maximum control for the least amount of money.  She took comments from those present and suggested that if we run our own system, we will be in control but will also be responsible for the system.

Paula reported that at a recent ILCSO meeting, allusions were made that we were going to jump ship, but she assured them that we won’t.  We’ve been offered money for a Senior position so she can be freed up to work on ILCSO and other state initiatives.   This would show a commitment to ILCSO. 

ILCSO has let DRA know that we are thinking of a new system by Fall of 2001.    DRA should be recognizing that options are being considered, but we haven’t heard anything back from them, and their poor service probably won’t get better. As ISCSO approaches new vendors, it will let them propose to us how they could accomplish our needs, including shared data bases with ILSCO.

3.  Management Data

Tina Chrzastowski reported on the document on Management Data that was distributed via mail.  It is agreed that if we had more data, we’d have a better sense of what’s going on.  EC has passed this on to AC for implementation.  They are looking for approval to go ahead and are interested in feedback.  She asked everyone to talk it over in the divisions and bring back comments to the next meeting.

Barb Henigman added that in cataloging it would be helpful to have a count of things we buy and don’t get cataloged in a year.  All agreed that it is important to standardize things, even though it will take time.  We will find out what we can get , define what is useful, and request more as we need it.

4.  Report on themes deriving from briefings and discussions with AC members.

Paula Kaufman reported on the themes that surfaced in her individual briefings   and discussions with AC members.

1.  Most mentioned were a need for a shared vision, a change in organizational culture to one that features trust and collaboration, and training and development for faculty and staff.

2.  Need to continue strategic planning, to refine the process and to keep it an ongoing activity.

3.  Lots of questions about decentralization

a.  cataloging and technical services inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the way in which resources are distributed and difficulties in coordination

b.  public services inconsistencies in interpretation of public services philosophies

4.  Organizational issues what’s the role of the Division Coordinators; is there a need for a Deputy University Librarian or other senior positions.

5. Internal support secretarial support for committees, divisions, and projects; need to improve the Personnel Office support.

6. Need more staff, need training and development, and need to find ways to improve morale.

7.  Faculty issues recruiting and mentoring faculty, looking at the balance in the promotion and tenure process, re-examing faculty merit system.

8.  More resources needed for all formats of collections and budget reallocations.

9.  Budget need more money; some need to understand University budget and where we fit in; need to take charge of our own fate and get real with the 1990’s.

10.  Need for stronger relationships with other departments on campus, with ILCSO, State Library, and other groups; improving our Marketing and Public Relations on and off campus, and a strong need for development.

11.  Passionate need for preservation collections and strategic planning.

12.  T echnology more staff access to work stations; lots of DRA system issues

13.  Need to coordinate and plan our digital efforts.

14.  Space is a great need need to look at and resolve space issues.  She did not hear anything about diversity or consolidating departmental libraries.

Bob Burger asked What three things do you think we should do?

Paula’s answer:

1.  Building a shared vision of the Library and its future.

2.  Change some of the organizational culture, build more of a "we’re in this together" environment which speaks to the need for training and development.   Need to broaden the focus from the collection to the people who work here, to service profiles and common philosophies.

3.  Build external relations on campus, at the state level, at the national level, and with our donors and potential donors. 

Our strategic planning effort is at the top of the list.

5.  ARL’s OLMS program

There was general agreement that Library personnel need more opportunities for development.  ARL has a whole menu of development programs to choose from for faculty and academic professionals.  Special areas of needs mentioned were library management, team building and training, change, creativity, project management, overall view of library management, senior management, statistics, and diversity.  Paula asked for anyone interested in joining a small group to tailor a program to meet the needs of our people to contact her.

6. Other comments

Deloris:  The First Quarterly Financial Report is in the mail for each Unit Head and Area Coordinator.  Pending the temporary transfer from the Provost, a number of accounts will show deficit lines.

Alvan:  Please be patient and supportive of Personnel while they work out their hours, etc.

The next AC Agenda meeting is October 27 at 1:30 p.m.

 The meeting adjourned at 324 p.m.

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

I.  Approval of the Past Meeting Minutes

This is a high priority part of the strategic plan.  There is money in the budget for one position (plus the possibility of a $50,000 grant from Mellon available to plan a new program).  Margaret Chaplan raised the question of who the position should report to.  There was consensus that the Preservation person should report to Karen Schmidt.   Paula Kaufman will continue to explore this with EC and directors.  It was also agreed that an appropriate title for the position needs to be determined.  Paula K. and Karen S. will draft a position description and draw up a list of proposed search committee members.

The question was raised of who will conduct the 3Y review.

VI.  Interim Commerce Librarian

IX.  Law Library Searches

EC proposed a number of individuals to the law search committees.  There will be four semi-simultaneous committees working.  Faculty will be contacted by Paula Kaufman about their willingness to serve.

X.  Miscellaneous

Tina raised the question about how Executive Committee minutes should be distributed.   Tim informed the committee that the minutes need to appear in LON because archival copies are in LON.

Paula Kaufman asked if the Executive Committee has a web site.  There was discussion by the executive committee about a web site last January.  Tim said that a staff page was created and a system was set up by which the minutes of meetings that appeared in LON would automatically be available from the web site.  There is not enough staff to keep the site updated.  Tim suggested that there is a need to get Systems involved and get more resources, i.e., at least a one-half time graduate assistant.  Paula Kaufman indicated that this should be an agenda item for the future.

Margaret Chaplan brought up the issue that there is a need to announce who is on search committees.  It is important to keep track of who’s serving on what search committee so it will be known who is available to serve on other search committees.   Presently, it is Paula’s responsibility to do a charge, ask someone to serve, send the response to the committee, and then make the announcement in LON.

XI.  Next Agenda Items

Information Technology Committee/Appoint Committee

Task Force on User Education Charge

October 25, 1999
2:00-3:30, 428 Library

 1.  DISCUSSION WITH UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN

Paula Kaufman was the guest of the CDC for the first 30 minutes.  She talked with the Committee about a wide range of issues, including preservation initiatives and the potential for support from the Mellon Foundation; budget revision and fund raising; how bibliographic control affects access to the collections; the impact of the CIC VEL; and how collections, specialists and fund might work more closely together.  A challenge we face is how to link our users and researchers to resources beyond this campus.   Push technology is an example of how new technology can provide fuller service to collections both within and beyond the campus.  We constantly need to be looking out for ways to increase our service and access to collections and information.

2.  REPORT ON BUDGET

Schmidt reported on the first Campus Library Policy Committee.  The major thrust of the CLPC in its second and final year will be to investigate budget revision for the materials budget.  The impetus behind this is a recognition that our collections budget was built several decades ago and that campus priorities, publishing, and research needs have changed; as well as the mandate from the Provost to consider if and how such reallocation might take place.  A planning group that includes Kaufman, Schmidt, Alex Scheeline, Tom Ward and Bob Burger will begin to plan a process for reallocation to present to the Provost in the spring.   The process will include plenty of campus-wide discussion and public hearings and will take a full-system approach to looking at the ramifications of any reallocation.

Given the lengthy time frame that is likely in developing a reallocation process, the CDC Budget Subcommittee has been instructed by the University Librarian and the Senate Committee on the Library to continue to work on refining the budget allocation process used for FY00.  This work will start in November and will build on the many suggestions made by Library faculty to improve the process.

The Scholarly Communications Series that has been discussed is moving forward. Schmidt, Watson, Mitzi Williams and Tony Kaufman (English) will be planning a small number of campus events for the spring, 2000.  The focus will be the changing nature of scholarly communication and the problems and opportunities these changes bring us.

Holiman reminded the Committee that fund managers need to let her know if dollars need to be moved within funds.

3.  APPROVAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

German shared information on statistics for approval plan books.  She advised that the list of approval plan publishers to be considered for adding to our list was extensive and not yet complete.  She presented a draft policy for handling approval plan conflicts.  After some discussion, it was agreed that the policy would be reviewed at the division level, with suggested changes coming to the November 1999, CDC meeting.

4.  TANGIBLE DIGITAL PRODUCTS DISCUSSION

Following the extensive discussion on LIB-NEWS regarding how CD-ROMs and other "tangible digital products" are handled in our Library, Schmidt renewed the topic with the CDC.  Last year, a policy on TDPs had been developed and approved by a joint task force from the CDC and EIRC.  The policy built on the work of the Preservation Committee, and specifically on the docoument on TDPs written by David Griffiths.  Barbara Henigman, chair of CPAC, recently discussed the issue with CPAC and sent CDC recommendations on how to handle these items.  Schmidt asked that division representatives review the CDC-EIRC policy and the recommendations from CPAC to determine if further policy was needed. This will be discussed at the November or December CDC meeting.

5.  FUNDING FOR E-RESOURCES

In light of the small amount of resources available this year for e-resources, Schmidt had asked the CDC Budget Subcommittee to consider whether we should look at internal reallocation to help support the acquisition of new titles.  At this CDC meeting, Schmidt asked that this question be posed to the divisions as well. It was suggested by the Budget Subcommittee that Watson provide a list of priority items that we would like to purchase this year but cannot.  Watson is working on this.  It was agreed that this list would be pivotal to a division level discussion.

6.  RETENTION OF PRINT ALONG WITH PRESERVATION MICROFILM

Friedman handed out the article "Scholars, Librarians, and the Future of Primary Records," by Phyllis Franklin, and asked that the CDC read this before we discuss any policy regarding the retention of print copies when a preservation microfilm copy has been made.  This item will be added to the November or December CDC agenda.

As a follow-up to the discussion at last month’s CDC meeting, Schmidt reported that it is the intention to send our preservation microfilm to the National Underground Storage facility.  The CDC objected to this and Schmidt will discuss this further with Bart Clark.

7.  OTHER

There was a discussion of how we can best dispose of surplus copies weeded from our collections.  It was suggested that we offer some of these materials to UI-Springfield first.  Schmidt suggested that we can also advertise them to other public supported academic libraries in Illinois using the CCMP listserv.  She will send out instructions to interested people and send a reminder about this via LIB-NEWS.   The Committee discussed stacks procedures for notifying selectors of changes and Schmidt agreed to send questions on to Betsy Kruger.

The next meeting is scheduled for November 23, 2:00 p.m.  Schmidt is arranging a walk-through of the stacks.  She is particularly interested in having the Committee look at a couple of cataloging backlogs, some special collections, and general stacks crowding and preservation issues.

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

The minutes of the October 11, 1999, meeting were approved.

II.  New Business

2. Natural History Survey Librarians request for faculty status/privileges

Natural History Survey librarians are asking for faculty privileges and faculty status. A 0% appointment has faculty privileges but not faculty status.  A faculty member has to be 50% to vote.  Paula will find out more information before any action is taken on the positions in Natural History Survey.  Following an EC recommendation, the entire library faculty will vote on the motion/recommendation.

3.  RPC committee member recommendation.

A recommendation was made for the vacant position on the RPC Committee.  Paula Kaufman will follow up on it.

The concerns with faculty merit are there is no objective way to measure performance, no opportunities for anyone else to comment on performance, no mechanism for goals, no evaluation by a unit or division head.  Supervisor evaluations have been tried before and encountered difficulties.  There are vague differences between the merit levels, and it is difficult to get feedback that is constructive.  The University is beginning to explore annual, written reviews of every faculty member.  Different formats are used, and academic evaluations are not consistent across the campus. 

2. Information Technology Committee

The purpose of the Information Technology Committee will be to

· coordinate support on technology projects,
· achieve better communications to obtain resources,
· preserve knowledge after a grant ends,
· develop software infrastructures and improve budget development,
· acquire collective expertise,
· develop a format for soliciting and evaluating seed project proposals.

The Task Force on User Education has been a temporary group.  They have discussed a permanent advisor or public service coordinator to take the place of the committee; the position is in the budget for next year.  The need for user education space is also being discussed.