December 8, 2021 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Time and Location of Meeting

December 8, 20213:00 pm - 4:30 pm Zoom Meeting

Agenda Details

Agenda

MINUTES

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
December 8, 2021

3-4:30PM

via Zoom

 

1. Call to Order 3:01pm – 73 participants

2. Standing Items

 

2.1   Adoption of the agenda

  • Adopted as is. Motion by Dan Tracy (SC&P), Seconded by JJ Pionke (SSHEL)

 

2.2   Approval of the minutes of the September Faculty Meeting

  • Nancy O’Brien (SSHEL) noted that she sent corrections to Jessica Hagman and Lucretia Williams and moved to approve as amended. Seconded by Becky Smith (Grainger).

 

2.3   Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)

  • Heidi Imker (RDS) introduced Sandi Caldrone (Research Data Service Librarian, RDS)
  • Sara Holder (RIS) introduced Evie Cordell (E-Learning Librarian, RIS)

 

2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Mara Thacker)

  • EC has met 7 times since the last faculty meeting. Minutes are on the EC website.
    • Current members are Peg Burnette, Mary Laskowski, Joe Lenkhart, Bill Maher, Dan Tracy (Secretary), Kelli Trei, Chris Wiley, and Mara Thacker (Vice-Chair)
    • Anyone wishing to propose a topic for EC can send agenda items to Dan Tracy or Mara Thacker, who will ensure that the item appears on a future agenda.
  • AULs, directors, and co-chairs of Library Support Staff Committee and Library Committee of Academic Professionals continue to join EC once a month to discuss items of shared concern
  • EC has received updates on the upcoming Academic Program Review, from Dean Wilkin, with potential names of reviewers and a timeline. Any questions about the review are best addressed by Dean Wilkin.
  • EC has continued to discuss the AUL for User Services position, with no established consensus or recommendation yet.
  • EC addressed confusion around reporting relationships for unit heads who do not currently report to an AUL or Director, which resulted in a new shared document outlining relationships and established reporting relationships for unit heads who did not have one articulated.
  • New task forces have been charged:
    • Student-focused Spaces Team
    • Teaching and Learning Task Force
    • Diversity Residency Advisory Committee
    • Promotion and Tenure Working Group
  • EC discussed the recommendations of the Research and Investigation Time Task Force and approved revisions to the Research and Investigation Time Policy and the Guidelines for Investigation Time.
    • EC discussed the outcomes of the Research Support Task Force but tabled the discussion of hiring a research support staff member.
  • EC discussed hybrid and remote work plans, supporting Dean Wilkin’s stance that it is not appropriate to exclude entire classes from employees from remote work without regard to the nature of the work they do. The discussion is ongoing.
    • Dean Wilkin added that Susan Breakenridge has worked with campus HR and legal to ensure that those library civil service positions should now be able to work remotely if their job responsibilities allow for that.
  • EC received updates on the impact that revisions to Communication #9 will have on the library.
  • EC received input on the agenda for the annual Tenured Faculty meeting and solicited discussion topics for the meeting.
  • Updates on position requests and searches:
    • EC approved a position description and title for converting Becky Smith’s role to STEM Entrepreneurship and Business Librarian.
    • EC continues to have an advisory role in the prioritization of hiring requests, but all requests, including faculty are currently going through the Budget Group (which includes representation from EC and AC, as well as the AULs and Directors, Dean Wilkin, and Susan Breakenridge) given the current budget limitations.
    • These positions have been approved, with search committees assigned:
    • EC has received many updates on the Building Project and the MUGLI working groups
    • EC has discussed its own communication processes and committed to having substantive discussions happen only during EC meetings so that meeting minutes will be a definitive source for EC decision making.
    • PRCs were assigned for several new colleagues
    • EC addressed diversity and recruitment, via
      • Regular updates from the Inclusion in Governance Task Force
      • Approving a proposal from Victor Jones for the Diversity Residency Advisory Committee
      • Susan Breakenridge submitted a list of suggestions generated by a subgroup that looked at improving recruitment, hiring, and onboarding processes from a DEIA perspective, with conversations ongoing.
    • EC has initiated the process for the annual review of directors and AULs and planned a timeline for completing the evaluations
      • EC has charged more 5-year Unit Head Review committees, and after current reviews are completed, will be caught up with outstanding reviews.
      • EC has approved a revised process for reviews.

 

2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)

  • As has been previously stated, the faculty meeting will not be for general sharing of information, to avoid the perception that faculty meetings are where new information is shared. Library-wide information is shared in the library hangouts.
    • Heather Murphy shares hangout recaps after each meeting. A recording of the December 8 hangout is on Mediaspace.
  • Building updates:
    • The building project has received a strong recommendation from the chancellor and the president, with money in hand. At this point, projects are usually approved by the Board of Trustees. We are nearly to the point of moving away from questions of ‘if’ to what, and how, and when. Advocacy for the Main Library piece of the project will continue.
  • Budget updates
    • There is a centrally funded salary program, which had previously been the norm.
    • No reductions are currently being asked.
    • While there is not currently a deficit, the operations side of the budget has very little wiggle room – less than $100,000 of unencumbered or committed funds, which impacts the approval of new positions. Approving new positions limits flexibility moving forward.
    • Faculty participation in the academic program review will be critical, though we don’t currently know what this will look like.
    • The program review should be viewed as a collective review of ourselves with external communication and feedback in the process.
  • Q: JJ Pionke asks about hiring for a Digital Humanities Librarian
    • A: Dean Wilkin reiterated the process for prioritizing positions that come open (through the Budget Group) and noted that it is too soon to comment on specific positions given that there are 15 open positions across all employee groups.

 

3. Discussion Items

 

3.1 RPC Grants (10 mins – Emilee Matthews)

  • Emilee Mathews (Art & Architecture) discussed her recent research project that was funded by an RPC grant.
    • Emilee’s work was a systematic investigation of which art shows receive reviews in art-related publications.
    • A graduate hourly employee, funded through the RPC grant, allowed a much more systematic investigation of the review, which showed that white artists are more likely to receive reviews.
    • Emilee has shared this research with the Art History department and developed a related exhibit.
    • Q: Antonio Sotomayor asks about how “Hispanic” is defined in the research given that it is an ethnicity and not a racial category.
      • A: Emily notes that the categories come from an existing data set.

 

3.2 Comm 9 updates, and update from the Promotion & Tenure Working Group (30-40 mins – Chris Prom)

  • Comm 9 has received another update, available on Box
    • There are some changes, which Chris has summarized.
    • The P & T working group will be discussing changes later this week and welcomes feedback.
    • Individual feedback can also be shared online
    • This is expected to be the last opportunity for feedback on the Comm 9 revisions.
  • The P & T Working group has had ongoing conversations, with meeting notes available on Box.
    • These conversations will mean significant changes to the existing library statement on promotion and tenure, based on the upcoming changes to Comm 9 and disciplinary standards for faculty librarians, such as the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status of Academic Librarians. Changes are expected to clarify our existing standards, and will be adopted after full review and vote of the faculty at a future meeting.
    • The working group has begun drafting a statement on excellence in librarianship. While work is still very early in this process, Chris shared a draft of the introduction to this statement (in Box).
  • Discussion of current revisions:
    • Dossiers should address contributions to DEI in at least one of area of work, with a new area of the document to discuss this work (or refer to discussions in other parts of the documents)
    • Language has been added to allow flexibility for emerging forms of scholarship
      • Chris noted that feedback on library-specific language in this area would be welcome.
    • The Executive Officer document should acknowledge the potential for bias and how the unit has addressed “cumulative professional disadvantage”
    • The contributions to teaching and learning section of the document will focus on a definition of “teaching excellence,” which colleges will decide how to interpret.
      • The library will propose a statement of excellence in librarianship.
    • Campus level evaluation of teaching will not focus solely on ICES scores, with an expectation that student feedback, peer evaluation, and the candidate statement.
    • The service section will be updated to allow a personal statement.
    • Statements on research evaluation will include a focus on public engagement – if this has been an agreed-upon part of the candidate’s work.
    • Some elements/revisions that have been removed:
      • A statement on standards of integrity and professional conduct has been removed.
        • Q: JJ Pionke (with concurrence from Heidi Imker and Mara Thacker): Why was this section removed? Was there concern that this statement is/would be misused in some way?
        • Related Q: Clara Chu (Mortensen): Is the change about defining which standards should apply, and to allow different ways of defining “integrity,” including ways that are more positional?
        • Chris Prom: AAUP has a statement on faculty conduct. This would be a good place for more feedback on the revision process.
      • As has a requirement that faculty attend a workshop for issues around diversity in the promotion and tenure process.
    • Further questions/discussion (related discussion points are grouped together rather than in strict chronological order):
      • Q: Karen Hogenboom (RIS): When does the new version of Comm 9 go into effect?
      • Related Q: Celestina Savronius-Wroth (HP&NL): Previous place of work evaluated candidates based on the criteria in place when they were hired, but that appears to not the base here?
        • A: Chris Prom: unclear. Until recently assumption was for those going up for tenure in the next academic year, but this hasn’t been said officially. There is an understanding that those who are having the process change while they are pre-tenure should be treated fairly and equitably. While the dossier will change, there should not be new criteria added, but making the criteria more clear.
        • Dean Wilkin adds that the campus has emphasized that the revisions are not intended to be additive and recognizes the stress of not knowing when the revisions will go into effect.
      • Q: JJ Pionke expressed concern for those who may need to revise their dossiers with short notice
        • Cindy Ingold (SSHEL) pointed out paper preparers and faculty editors will support the dossier development process.
        • Dean Wilkin commented that the executive officer letter offers the opportunity to rebut any issues that come up in the reviews.
      • Q: Nancy O’Brien noted change on page 15 that allows only one external reviewer to be an associate professor and asks whether this applies to promotion to associate and full or just full?
        • Several colleagues reiterated how this policy could be problematic given the limited number of librarians with full professorships, and that requiring reviews from full professors could ultimately limit the diversity of those who receive tenure and the diversity of work conducted.
      • Q: JJ Pionke asked what checks and balances are in place to ensure fairness of the promotion and tenure process?
        • A: External evaluators are asked to limit bias as much as possible, and the executive officer statement allows for responses to evaluator comments, including rebuttal if needed.
      • Chris Prom shared an outline of potential updates to the Statement on Promotion and Tenure to the Library Faculty and UIUC
        • Overview
        • Role of Faculty in Contributing to Library and Campus Excellence
        • Domains of Evaluation
        • General Criteria for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor
        • Specific Criteria and Measures in librarianship, research, creative and scholarly activities, and professional service and public engagement.
        • Review Process for Promotion and Tenure
        • A statement on faculty excellence in librarianship
      • Q: Bill Maher (University Archives) asked about potential for feedback and voting on the final version.
        • A: Many feedback opportunities, with voting on the final version expected next year.
        • Cindy shared committee membership, with a reminder that feedback can be shared with any member. Members are: Cindy Ingold, Merinda Hensley, Jennifer Teper, Lisa Romero, Antonio Sotomayor, Mary Laskowski, and Sara Benson

 

 

4. Lightning Talks

None

5. New Business

None

6. Announcements

 

7. Adjournment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes Details

Minutes

MINUTES

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
December 8, 2021

3-4:30PM

via Zoom

 

1. Call to Order 3:01pm – 73 participants

2. Standing Items

 

2.1   Adoption of the agenda

  • Adopted as is. Motion by Dan Tracy (SC&P), Seconded by JJ Pionke (SSHEL)

 

2.2   Approval of the minutes of the September Faculty Meeting

  • Nancy O’Brien (SSHEL) notes that she sent corrections to Jessica Hagman and Lucretia Williams and moves to approve as amended. Seconded by Becky Smith (Grainger).

 

2.3   Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)

  • Heidi Imker (RDS) introduced Sandi Caldrone (Research Data Service Librarian, RDS)
  • Sara Holder (RIS) introduced Evie Cordell (E-Learning Librarian, RIS)

 

2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Mara Thacker)

  • EC has met 7 times since the last faculty meeting. Minutes are on the EC website.
    • Current members are Peg Burnette, Mary Laskowski, Joe Lenkhart, Bill Maher, Dan Tracy (Secretary), Kelli Trei, Chris Wiley, and Mara Thacker (Vice-Chair)
    • Anyone wishing to propose a topic for EC can send agenda items to Dan Tracy or Mara Thacker, who will ensure that the item appears on a future agenda.
  • AULs, directors, and co-chairs of Library Support Staff Committee and Library Committee of Academic Professionals continue join EC once a month discuss items of shared concern
  • EC has received updates on the upcoming Academic Program Review, from Dean Wilkin, with potential names of reviewers and a timeline. Any questions about the review are best addressed by Dean Wilkin.
  • EC has continued to discuss the AUL for User Services position, with no established consensus or recommendation yet.
  • EC addressed confusion around reporting relationships for unit heads who do not currently report to an AUL or Director, which resulted in a new shared document outlining relationships and established reporting relationships for unit heads who did not have one articulated.
  • New task forces have been charged:
    • Student-focused Spaces Team
    • Teaching and Learning Task Force
    • Diversity Residency Advisory Committee
    • Promotion and Tenure Working Group
  • EC discussed the recommendations of the Research and Investigation Time Task Force and approved revisions to the Research and Investigation Time Policy and the Guidelines for Investigation Time.
    • EC discussed the outcomes of the Research Support Task Force but tabled the discussion of hiring a research support staff member.
  • EC discussed hybrid and remote work plans, supporting Dean Wilkin’s stance that it is not appropriate to exclude entire classes from employees from remote work without regard to the nature of the work they do. The discussion is ongoing.
    • Dean Wilkin added that Susan Breakenridge has worked with campus HR and legal to ensure that those library civil service positions should now be able to work remotely if their job responsibilities allow for that.
  • EC received updates on the impact of revisions to Communication #9 will have on the library.
  • EC received input on the agenda for the annual Tenured Faculty meeting and solicited discussion topics for the meeting.
  • Updates on position requests and searches:
    • EC approved a position description and title for converting Becky Smith’s role to STEM Entrepreneurship and Business Librarian.
    • EC continues to have an advisory role in the prioritization of hiring requests, but all requests, including faculty are currently going through the Budget Group (which includes representation from EC and AC, as well as the AULs and Directors, Dean Wilkin, and Susan Breakenridge) given the current budget limitations.
    • These positions have been approved, with search committees assigned:
    • EC has received many updates on the Building Project and the MUGLI working groups
    • EC has discussed its own communication processes and committed to having substantive discussions happen only during EC meetings so that meeting minutes will be a definitive source for EC decision making.
    • PRCs were assigned for several new colleagues
    • EC addressed diversity and recruitment, via
      • Regular updates from the Inclusion in Governance Task Force
      • Approving a proposal from Victor Jones for the Diversity Residency Advisory Committee
      • Susan Breakenridge submitted a list of suggestions generated by a subgroup that looked at improving recruitment, hiring, and onboarding processes from a DEIA perspective, with conversations ongoing.
    • EC has initiated the process for the annual review of directors and AULs and planned a timeline for completing the evaluations
      • EC has charged more 5-year Unit Head Review committees, and after current reviews are completed, will be caught up with outstanding reviews.
      • EC has approved a revised process for reviews.

 

2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)

  • As has been previously stated, the faculty meeting will not be for general sharing of information, to avoid the perception that faculty meetings are where new information is shared. Library-wide information is shared in the library hangouts.
    • Heather Murphy shares hangout recaps after each meeting. A recording of the December 8 hangout is on Mediaspace.
  • Building updates:
    • The building project has received a strong recommendation from the chancellor and the president, with money in hand. At this point, projects are usually approved by the Board of Trustees. We are nearly to the point of moving away from questions of ‘if’ to what, and how, and when. Advocacy for the Main Library piece of the project will continue.
  • Budget updates
    • There is a centrally funded salary program, which had previously been the norm.
    • No reductions are currently being asked.
    • While there is not currently a deficit, the operations side of the budget has very little wiggle room – less than $100,000 of unencumbered or committed funds, which impacts the approval of new positions. Approving new positions limits flexibility moving forward.
    • Faculty participation in the academic program review will be critical, though we don’t currently know what this will look like.
    • The program review should be viewed as a collective review of ourselves with external communication and feedback in the process.
  • Q: JJ Pionke asks about hiring for a Digital Humanities Librarian
    • A: Dean Wilkin reiterated the process for prioritizing positions that come open (through the Budget Group) and noted that it is too soon to comment on specific positions given that there are 15 open positions across all employee groups.

 

3. Discussion Items

 

3.1 RPC Grants (10 mins – Emilee Matthews)

  • Emilee Mathews (Art & Architecture) discussed her recent research project that was funded by an RPC grant.
    • Emilee’s work was a systematic investigation of which art shows receive reviews in art-related publications.
    • A graduate hourly employee, funded through the RPC grant, allowed a much more systematic investigation of the review, which showed that white artists are more likely to receive reviews.
    • Emilee has shared this research with the Art History department and developed a related exhibit.
    • Q: Antonio Sotomayor asks about how “Hispanic” is defined in the research given that it is an ethnicity and not a racial category.
      • A: Emily notes that the categories come from an existing data set.

 

3.2 Comm 9 updates, and update from the Promotion & Tenure Working Group (30-40 mins – Chris Prom)

  • Comm 9 has received another update, available on Box
    • There are some changes, which Chris has summarized.
    • The P & T working group will be discussing changes later this week and welcomes feedback.
    • Individual feedback can also be shared online
    • This is expected to be the last opportunity for feedback on the Comm 9 revisions.
  • The P & T Working group has had ongoing conversations, with meeting notes available on Box.
    • These conversations will mean significant changes to the existing library statement on promotion and tenure, based on the upcoming changes to Comm 9 and disciplinary standards for faculty librarians, such as the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status of Academic Librarians. Changes are expected to clarify our existing standards, and will be adopted after full review and vote of the faculty at a future meeting.
    • The working group has begun drafting a statement on excellence in librarianship. While work is still very early in this process, Chris shared a draft of the introduction to this statement (in Box).
  • Discussion of current revisions:
    • Dossiers should address contributions to DEI in at least one of area of work, with a new area of the document to discuss this work (or refer to discussions in other parts of the documents)
    • Language has been added to allow flexibility for emerging forms of scholarship
      • Chris noted that feedback on library-specific language in this area would be welcome.
    • The Executive Officer document should acknowledge the potential for bias and how the unit has addressed “cumulative professional disadvantage”
    • The contributions to teaching and learning section of the document will focus on a definition of “teaching excellence,” which colleges will decide how to interpret.
      • The library will propose a statement of excellence in librarianship.
    • Campus level evaluation of teaching will not focus solely on ICES scores, with an expectation that student feedback, peer evaluation, and the candidate statement.
    • The service section will be updated to allow a personal statement.
    • Statements on research evaluation will include a focus on public engagement – if this has been an agreed-upon part of the candidate’s work.
    • Some elements/revisions that have been removed:
      • A statement on standards of integrity and professional conduct has been removed.
        • Q: JJ Pionke (with concurrence from Heidi Imker and Mara Thacker): Why was this section removed? Was there concern that this statement is/would be misused in some way?
        • Related Q: Clara Chu (Mortensen): Is the change about defining which standards should apply, and to allow different ways of defining “integrity,” including ways that are more positional?
        • Chris Prom: AAUP has a statement on faculty conduct. This would be a good place for more feedback on the revision process.
      • As has a requirement that faculty attend a workshop for issues around diversity in the promotion and tenure process.
    • Further questions/discussion (related discussion points are grouped together rather than in strict chronological order):
      • Q: Karen Hogenboom (RIS): When does the new version of Comm 9 go into effect?
      • Related Q: Celestina Savronius-Wroth (HP&NL): Previous place of work evaluated candidates based on the criteria in place when they were hired, but that appears to not the base here?
        • A: Chris Prom: unclear. Until recently assumption was for those going up for tenure in the next academic year, but this hasn’t been said officially. There is an understanding that those who are having the process change while they are pre-tenure should be treated fairly and equitably. While the dossier will change, there should not be new criteria added, but making the criteria more clear.
        • Dean Wilkin adds that the campus has emphasized that the revisions are not intended to be additive and recognizes the stress of not knowing when the revisions will go into effect.
      • Q: JJ Pionke expresses concern for those who may need to revise their dossiers with short notice
        • Cindy Ingold (SSHEL) points out paper preparers and faculty editors will support the dossier development process.
        • Dean Wilkin comments that the executive officer letter offers the opportunity to rebut any issues that come up in the reviews.
      • Q: Nancy O’Brien notes change on page 15 that allows only one external reviewer to be an associate professor and asks whether this applies to promotion to associate and full or just full?
        • Several colleagues reiterated how this policy could be problematic given the limited number of librarians with full professorships, and that requiring reviews from full professors could ultimately limit the diversity of those who receive tenure and the diversity of work conducted.
      • Q: JJ Pionke what checks and balances are in place to ensure fairness of the promotion and tenure process?
        • A: External evaluators are asked to limit bias as much as possible, and the executive officer statement allows for responses to evaluator comments, including rebuttal if needed.
      • Chris Prom shares outline of potential updates to the Statement on Promotion and Tenure to the Library Faculty and UIUC
        • Overview
        • Role of Faculty in Contributing to Library and Campus Excellence
        • Domains of Evaluation
        • General Criteria for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor
        • Specific Criteria and Measures in librarianship, research, creative and scholarly activities, and professional service and public engagement.
        • Review Process for Promotion and Tenure
        • A statement on faculty excellence in librarianship
      • Q: Bill Maher (University Archives) asks about potential for feedback and voting on the final version.
        • A: Many feedback opportunities, with voting on the final version expected next year.
        • Cindy shares committee membership, with a reminder that feedback can be shared with any member. Members are: Cindy Ingold, Merinda Hensley, Jennifer Tepper, Lisa Romero, Antonio Sotomayor, Mary Laskowski, and Sara Benson

 

 

4. Lightning Talks

None

5. New Business

None

6. Announcements

 

7. Adjournment