December 14, 2020 Meeting of Executive Committee

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

December 14, 2020

1:30-3:00pm

Zoom Meeting

 

1. Approve minutes – December 7, 2020
2. Question Time
3. 2-2:30 AUL’s/Director
4. External Reviewers for Tenure & Promotion Case
5. EC Process Issues
6. Innovation Fund Application

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes

December 14, 2020

1:30-3:00 pm

Zoom Conference Call

 

EC Attendees: John Wilkin (Chair); William Maher (Vice-Chair); Dan Tracy (Secretary); Mara Thacker, Mary Laskowski, David Ward, Kelli Trei, Jennifer Teper, and Peg Burnette. Lucretia Williams; Recording

 

Guest Attendees: Chris Prom, Sara Holder, and Tom Teper

 

1. Minutes – The December 7, 2020 EC meeting minutes were approved upon the motion by Kelli Trei and second by Jennifer Teper.

 

2. Question Time – Dean Wilkin updated EC on the following:

 

• We have a common understanding with the Provost of open positions to be able to help us in our process of determining encumbrances against open funds in the budget.
• We are moving forward with the administrative process on appointing the interim head of the Math Library.
• COD meeting discussed student experience survey results related to COVID. There were also conversations on what can be done to improve the student experience. There is a strong desire to get more in person instruction taking place and find ways to do that safely. Applications for AY21-22 are very good. We are up in applications again this year and that is both at the undergraduate and graduate level.
• We are in a good place on the budget and working hard on identifying how we can meet the $972,000 target, there is essentially two thirds of that met between unencumbered funds and open positions that we will hold. And the remainder of it should be possible by way of the voluntary retirement program.
• The Dean may arrange a budget overview presentation at some point, in part to explain things like the Library IT fee to people who have joined the library more recently and do not understand what it is or how it works.
• EC members presented follow-up concerns related to the faculty meeting schedule for the spring. A few members of EC would prefer to see two meetings. We will do one but it will be a trial and we will reassess for the fall. There was consensus but lack of unanimity about this approach. Additionally, the bylaws allow for any group of 10 faculty members to request that EC schedule a special meeting.

 

 

3. 2:30 – 3:00 AULs /Directors –

 

     Chris Prom – Updated EC on the weekly building update on building access over the Winter break. Services will be roughly the same as in the spring as they are currently. There will be no radical shifts, certainly in terms of delivery or fulfillment. There might be some slight tweaking around the edges with the study spaces that we have available in response to the student survey, although we are constrained in what we can do and also comply with health guidelines.

 

The Communications #9 Task Force met to discuss the timeline on the rollout of recommended changes to tenure and promotion documentation. A report is being prepared and the chair will be sending a draft recommendation to Bill Bernhard and Andreas Cangellaris to review. There are possibly some points that may affect the Library which may require us to update our statement on Promotion and Tenure. The suggested revisions include issues related to faculty conduct and DEIA work.

 

David Ward and Sara Holder – Progress of the Undergraduate Library/Main Library Integration Working Group – The working group has met a number of times and has agreed upon four sub-group topics: Consultations & Programming; Instruction; Study and Other Student Focused Spaces; and Logistics & Operations. Most recently, the Working Group wrote a charge for each sub-group, compiled lists of potential members for the groups, sent invitations, and finalized the membership for each. All have been invited a kick-off meeting to talk about plans for moving forward with their work and address questions from sub-group members. The co-leads of each group will plan meetings starting in January. The working group will also continue to meet regularly.

 

     Tom Teper – Updated EC on the Special Collections Working Group, and provided an overview of the status of the Architect/Engineer selection for the renovation. The previous week, members of the Library’s team attended seven presentations from firms competing to do the work and, just prior to the EC meeting, Tim Newman joined the campus selection team to make recommendations. In keeping with the State’s procurement code, we are not in a position to publicly discuss the firms at this point. However, the Library’s team was pleased with the resulting selection and alternates. John Wilkin asked whether any of the firms provided feedback on the program statement. Tom indicated that they did, almost all noting that it was among the most comprehensive program statements they had reviewed. Tom noted that he appreciated the work that everyone on the team and the subgroups – primarily from the Special Collections Division – did to make it possible.

 

Collections budget issue: The library had some carry-over money from last fiscal year after Alma bills were paid. Collections is putting that into a fund picking up ebooks acquired due to COVID requests for items that overlap Oak Street or Stacks. What we spent in first semester was about the amount of the carry-over. CDC appreciated that approach, and it streamlines the process for Mary and Cherie’.

 

 

     Mary Laskowski – Thanked members of EC for their participation in the Assistant Dean for Business and Human Resources search. The search committee hopes to make a recommendation to the dean before the holidays.

 

As anticipated, we are seeing a slight decline in print delivery of library resources and in increase in items being digitized now that more people are away from campus.

 

4. External Reviewers for Tenure & Promotion – EC selected External and Internal Reviewers for 5Y faculty. Lucretia Williams will work with Chris Prom on the External Reviewer letters and then send via email to the reviewers.

 

5. EC Process Issues –

 

EC discussed process issues for how draft minutes are kept, and also discussed processes for responding to position descriptions to ensure minimal delay for the search process.

 

 

6. Innovation Fund Application – EC requested some revisions to an Innovation Fund Application for better clarity and to address some aspects of the budget. Lucretia Williams will reach out to the applicant with the suggested EC changes and then report back to EC.

 

Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm