Time and Location of Meeting
December 2, 20153:00 pm - 4:30 pm 126 GSLIS
1. Call to Order
2. Standing Items:
2.1 Adoption of the agenda–John Wilkin
2.2 Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 2015–John Wilkin
Draft minutes attached.
2.3 Introductions–John Wilkin
2.4 Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes–John Wilkin)
2.5 Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes–Kirstin Dougan)
3. Discussion Topics
3.1 Discussion about the prioritization of faculty position requests (15 minutes, Dougan and Wilkin)
3.2 Content Access Policy & Technology (CAPT) Committee—Proposed Revised Committee Charge, (30 minutes—Tom Habing and Tom Teper)
Topics on which comments are particularly sought: scope of charge and duties, size and membership of CAPT and subgroups, procedures outlined, and other changes to be suggested.
4. Lightning Round
4.1 KANOPY for streaming of films (Lynn Wiley)
5. New Business
1. John Wilkin called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
2.1 Agenda. The agenda of the meeting was accepted as distributed.
2.2 Minutes. Acceptance of the minutes of September 23, 2015 meeting was moved by Qiang Jin and seconded by Lynn Wiley and approved by the meeting without amendment.
2.3 Wilkin called for introductions of new faculty.
William Mischo introduced Ali Krogman, first member of the residency program Michael Norman introduced Jamie Carlstone, bibliographic control of e-resources
Nancy O’Brien introduced Kelsey Cheshire, Behavioral Sciences Librarian
2.4 Report of the University Librarian. Wilkin reported that the budget process was going well. The Council of Deans has been discussing the budget planning process for FY2017, but matters are delayed because of state inaction. The narrative will be moved along, but a framework for the document is still lacking. Nevertheless, Wilkin expects to be well prepared for responding to the call for a budget proposal when it does come.
Wilkin announced that William Mischo has been awarded a fellowship in the American Association for the Advancement of Science and that Jennifer Teper had received an award from the campus for the quality of her full professor promotion dossier, and William Maher has been elected to the search committee for the next Chancellor. Meanwhile, Steve Witt has been appointed to an all campus group looking at admissions and also as Interim Director of the Global Studies Program.
Wilkin also noted that three faculty from the Library will be participating in the Association of Research Libraries strategic thinking design process relating to digital work.
2.5 Executive Committee Report. Kirstin Dougan reported on several matters that had been discussed by the Executive Committee over the course of its six meetings that had occurred since the last Faculty meeting. She noted that JoAnn Jacoby had been appointed Associate University Librarian and has resigned from the Executive Committee and M.J. Han has been elected to take her place, and Mary Laskowski has been appointed Secretary for the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee has discussed plans for potential budget reductions as well as new guidelines for Unit Heads. It has been decided that no call for a hiring plan would be made for this December, but the Library expects that the Provost will be accept requests to fill critical vacancies as they arise. Meanwhile, the EC has reviewed and approved job descriptions for pending searches and is looking at how best to formalize the new Residency program.
In response to the EC report, Lisa Hinchliffe asked whether a group had yet been constituted to outline a promotion path for “Specialized Faculty” and Academic Professionals. Wilkin indicated that no group has yet been created but this issue is being moved up in the EC’s agenda.
3.1 Hiring Plan. Wilkin noted that Hinchliffe’s question had anticipated his planned report on the hiring plan. He emphasized that in terms of seeking provost approval of initiating searches, the Library was not thinking of those requests so much as a matter of strategic needs but of filling particular critical vacancies. He stated the rationale was based the overall climate in which the campus had made cuts ranging from 2 to 7 percent and that while we were at the 2 percent region, some campus units had no positions approved. Going forward, hiring plans needed to be part of the Library’s budget narrative, especially as connected to the strategic planning process.
3.2 Content Access Policy & Technology (CAPT) Committee. Tom Habing and Tom Teper provided a presentation relating to a proposed revised CAPT charge (see: http://www.library.illinois.edu/cms/committee/exec/supplement/2015-2016/CAPTOrganizationFinal.docxThe goal is to reorganize CAPT in order to facilitate communication among several working groups. There would be an overarching committee comprised of twelve individuals: the three Associate University Librarians, the chairs of the working groups, and the User Experience Librarian. In response to a question from Beth Sheehan about the status of the Search, Discovery, and Delivery working group, Teper said it would continue. Wilkin emphasized that the chart was intended less about representing existing entities than to illustrate the relationships among people, groups, and functions, and Teper stressed that the idea was to provide people a structure for working together. In response to a question from Hinchcliffe about what it was that the Executive Committee was seeking, Dougan said that some of the new plan came from the questionnaire that had been distributed. She said that a primary concern was that while CAPT had a large membership, there was an imbalance with insufficient representation of the users. Wiley countered that as chair of the Electronic Resources Working Group, that group would not make any decisions without obtaining user input about specific e-resources. Karen Hogenboom indicated that when decisions are made, they must be informed by people who are involved in working directly with users. Teper countered that the User Experience Librarian and the AUL for Services are people with a significant role in service, and he added that there is no longer as stark a divide between the behind-the-scenes work and public service as there was fifteen years ago. Lori Mestre wondered whether this plan would really enable CAPT to respond quickly since launching projects should start by determining who needs to be involved. Aaron McCollough commented that an issue with CAPT was that it did not respond too quickly, yet the more feedback sought the less quickly we can react, thus there is an inherent contradiction. Teper indicated that a part of the current consultation was to build more of a communication and reporting process and that the intent was not to inhibit working groups from doing their work. Hinchcliffe indicated that prior e-mails indicated that the size of CAPT had been an issue, but the proposal does not change the number so much as who is on the committee. Thus it was not just the focus on the matter of size but instead on a commitment to communication. Ayla Stein agreed that it was not a question of the number of people but of who is represented, and she recommended more representation of people working with the public on a daily basis. JJ Pionke said that with the plan focused on the top layer, she could not see herself as part of it, and also with the lack of a role for staff in the system the policies coming from CAPT would be a matter of “you will do this because we are telling you to.” Following a comment from Beth Sheehan about there not being any staff representation at the CAPT level, Witt suggested that two additional members be appointed–a public services person and a subject specialist. Mischo said that presently there was an at-large member who happens to be a public service person.
After considerable length of discussion, Wilkin thanked the Faculty for providing important input. He stressed that his job was not to tell us how to do things. Although, as a community, we are invested in representation, this not the way to get things done. Instead, we need to make the body smaller and trust the people to do the work. In response to question from Stein about whether there would be time to provide more feedback, Wilkin said yes the Executive Committee would appreciate that, and Tom Habing agreed.
4. Lightning Round
4.1 Lynn Wiley provided a Power Point on the KANOPY electronic resource which provides video streaming on-demand which is now being offered by the Library on a one-year pilot basis. In addition to providing a wide variety of film and video content, the KANOPY providers are very responsive to the Library’s feedback and the system provides analytical information on the use of the system. Importantly, the resource allows faculty to preview content for potential use without the Library having to buy items that end up being only for a preview. As to what happens after the pilot period, Wiley said at that stage a task force will look at what would be needed to continue offering the resource. Teper suggested that depending on the level of use, we could possibly consider a collaboration with the campus Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL) to have it license the resource for classroom use.
5. New Business and Announcements.
Greg Knott announced that there was a new form being use for the pending round for submission of Graduate Assistant requests for the coming fiscal year. Hinchliffe announced that there would be a One Book, One Campus event in the following week. Pionke encouraged people to register in January to participate in the Disability Ally program.