February 23, 2022 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Agenda

2/23/22

 

1. Call to Order

1. Standing Items

2.1   Adoption of the agenda
2.2   Approval of the minutes of the December 2021 Faculty Meeting
2.3   Introduction of New Employees

2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Mara Thacker)
2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – Chris Prom on behalf of John Wilkin)

1. Discussion Items

3.1 Meetings for the remainder of Spring semester (10 mins – Faculty Agenda Committee)

3.2 Updated Statement on Promotion & Tenure (see draft documents in 2/15 email) (45 mins – Chris Prom)

1. Lightning Talks
   None scheduled

 

1. New Business

1. Announcements

1. Adjournment

 

MINUTES

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2022
3-4:30 pm
via Zoom

 

1. Call to Order – 3:02pm – 71 attendees
2. Standing Items

2.1   Adoption of the agenda – motion by JJ Pionke, second by Mary Laskowski

2.2   Approval of the minutes of the December 2021 Faculty Meeting, motion by Nancy O’Brien  as amended via email, seconded by JJ Pionke

2.3   Introduction of New Employees

No introductions

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

• EC has met 5 times since our last faculty meeting on December 8^th, 2021
• Reminder current EC membership alongside the Dean is Peg Burnette, Mary Laskowski, Joe Lenkart, Bill Maher, Dan Tracy (Secretary), Kelli Trei, Chris Wiley, and Mara Thacker (Vice-Chair).
  • Employees with matters you’d like to see EC discuss can send them to Mara Thacker or Dan Tracy, who will work to get the item on a future agenda.
• AULs, directors, co-chairs of LSSC and LCAP have continued to join EC once a month to discuss shared concerns. The FY22 budget was a recent topic of conversation
• EC has received periodic updates on the Academic Program Review. Work has begun more in earnest on this process, spearheaded by the AULs and Directors. The self-assessment is process now, with final document drafted by AULs and Directors, with consultation and participation from the Cabinet, EC, LCAP, AC, and LSSC.
  • Questions can be directed to Tom Teper.
  • Feedback you want to ensure is included should be directed to the relevant divisional representative on AC.
• EC received one Innovation Fund Proposal, which was reviewed and a revision requested with more details included. The next cycle will be in May or June.
• EC approved a proposed HR Policy related to GA appointments, with details shared on LibNews.
• EC reviewed proposed revisions to the Diversity Committee charge from the DEIA Task Force and asked that the two groups work together to either merge the two groups into a single committee or clearly distinguish the differences in their charges.
• Chris Prom discussed the P&T revisions with EC.
• EC discussed “Best Practices and Strategies in Hiring Recommendations” which contained suggestions gleaned from a Task Force for Research Support. Although many suggestions were provisionally approved, review of this document is ongoing and time consuming. Outcomes will be shared once the full document has been reviewed.
• EC discussed a proposed Revision to the 5-year Unit Head Review Procedures and will create an updated sentence for addition to the process document to clarify the options for review committees to make recommendations to resolve issues identified in the report.
• EC discussed a proposal for a voluntary supervisory review program and have asked for a more fulsome proposal for future consideration.
• New related to position requests and searches:
  • University Librarian:
    • Provost Cangellaris came to a joint meeting with EC and the AULs and Directors to discuss the search and answer our questions. The next step from our end is to compile a list of list of proposed names for the search committee. The Office of the Provost is ultimately in charge of this search.
  • EC continues to discuss hiring priorities with the AULs and representatives from LSSC and LCAP. In keeping with recent practice, the Budget Group (which is comprised of an EC representative, an AC representative, the AULs and Directors, the Dean, and Susan Breakenridge) was handling the approval of all position requests including faculty. EC will be resume handling faculty requests.
  • Two positions have been approved due, in part, to having special dedicated funding sources:
    • Mortensen Center Program Director (AP) – search committee is being confirmed
    • Assistant Archival Literary Manuscript Specialist for RBML (VST/AP) – the search committee has been confirmed, and they are in the process of finalizing the position description.
  • Several PRCs have been assigned for new faculty members
  • EC has initiated the process for annual review of directors, with a request sent to LibNews for anonymous Results of the feedback survey will not be shared with those being reviewed. The exception is Mary Laskowski who will not see her own report but will see the other reports as she helps evaluate the other AULs and Directors in her role as an elected member of EC. The feedback will only be presented in aggregate in the evaluations themselves

2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – Chris Prom on behalf of John Wilkin)

• Most report items already noted in the Hangout yesterday
• Additional information about Academic Program Review
  • AULs and Directors coordinating the process
  • Expect that a team of external reviewers will be on campus May 25-27.
    • Variety of meetings will be scheduled with a variety of groups in the library, the Senate Committee on the Library, and with the Provost.
    • The schedule is currently in development in consultation with the Provost’s office.
    • There will likely be a library-wide Zoom session with the team. It’s not clear when that will be, but the expectation is that it will be about an hour.
    • The team have time to begin working on the report during their visit.
  • AUL’s/Directors will draft based on feedback from around the library
• Questions:
  • Sarah Christensen: Is there an update on the inclusive governance task force?
    • Chris Prom asked Mara Thacker whether this is on the EC list of upcoming agenda items. Mara says that it’s in the “parking lot,” with more discussion pending once they have had a chance to discuss with LSSC and LCAP. But the hope is that the discussion is sooner rather than later.
  • Bruce Schatz: Is there a way to suggest potential candidates for the Dean position?
    • Chris Prom: EC is coordinating the process of suggesting names to the Provost for the search committee. Individuals can send names to Mara Thacker/EC. There will be later opportunities to share candidate suggestions. Chris Prom noted that when Dean Wilkin was hired, only some of the suggested search committee members were ultimately selected by the Provost.

3. Discussion Items

3.1 Meetings for the remainder of Spring semester (10 mins – Faculty Agenda Committee)

• Next meeting for Spring 2022 would have been April 27^th. Dean Wilkin is not available at this time, nor at the time in March that had previously been reserved for a monthly meeting.
  • Q from Faculty Agenda Committee: Is there enough desire to have another meeting during spring semester to attempt a reschedule? Just need a show of hands.
  • Q: Do we need Dean Wilkin here for the meeting?
  • Bill Maher: There has been a tradition of meeting without the Dean.
  • Several participants suggested or concurred with keeping the April 27 meeting in the chat.
• Conclusion: meeting will be held as scheduled on April 27

3.2 Updated Statement on Promotion & Tenure (see documents in 2/15 email) (45 mins – Chris Prom)

• Chris Prom:
  • Thanks for comments that have already been shared. Hope that everyone has had a chance to look at the statement because of the importance of the statement to our statement of values and who is part of the library faculty.
  • Campus will share the revised Comm 9 on March 28. The Library is currently revising our statement in line with drafts of Comm 9 revision that have been shared so far.
  • Library revision process:
    • EC appointed a task force to adapt our statement.
    • Inputs have been the latest versions of Comm 9, P&T statements from peer institutions, external community standards (ACRL, SAA, AAUP), and a feedback survey
    • The taskforce met 7 times to work on redrafting the document. They worked in subgroups and sought feedback from Victor Jones on issues of DEIA.
  • Major changes:
    • Added a definition of excellence in librarianship.
    • Added contributions to campus excellence, which includes what library faculty contribute to the campus, referencing external standards for conduct and professional ethics. There is still some room for improvement in this area.
    • Domains of evaluation are identified: research, librarianship, and service, with the clarification that faculty can also make public engagement contributions within any of these areas.
      • DEIA is not a domain in and of itself, but faculty will be able to say how their work is contributing to campus DEIA work. Language has been added to clarify what this might look like from the Library.
      • Librarianship is a simple statement based on feedback from the campus committee.
      • Research and service: mostly clarifications of existing standards, with an added requirement that evaluation of service must recognize the extra service burdens that are placed on individuals from marginalized communities.
    • The definition of excellence at the full professor level has been expanded, with more clarification on what it means to move from associate to full.
  • Clara Chu shared comments on the document at the request of the task force
    • The emphasis on the research component should be highlighted more. The document describes professional work, with less detail on research/scholarship.
    • The document needs to be more inclusive of a wide variety of constituents, rather than just partnerships with faculty.
    • Academic should be used instead of educational.
    • Q: What types/level of service are required to move to associate level or full?
    • Full professor level requires contributions that have an impact
    • Q: How do we recognize those who are doing research that is significant to the field, but not strictly LIS?
    • Publications are largely emphasized as the form of work, but there are other types of work (e.g. creative works) that may be relevant.
    • DEIA is used in general terms, but we should be clear about intentionality and commitment. The focus should not be on the amount of DEIA work done, but how it integrates with the three domains, in order to avoid non-engaged work that simply check boxes.
      • DEIA should be a deliberate, integrated practice, and that recognizes multiple ways of knowing.
    • Language around research tends to emphasize individual work, which leaves little room to recognize work that involves community members.
    • Recognize the importance of the word ‘transformational’
  • Multiple commenters in the chat thanked Clara for this feedback.
  • JJ Pionke: Is public work required? Or DEIA?
    • Chris Prom: There is not an expectation that everyone will do public engagement work. The language is there to acknowledge the work of those whose position requires this work.
  • Clara Chu: How will library support DEIA work?
    • JJ Pionke describes choosing DEIA work, but that not everyone will make the same choice? How do we support new faculty who want to work on DEIA issues?
    • Chris Prom: The Library needs further conversation on what counts as DEIA work. But Comm 9 will be slowly implemented and there will be a range of relevant experiences in this area. As a land grant institution, we have a responsibility to build inclusion and do outreach. We should think of a menu, more than a specific recipe for work in this area.
    • Cindy Ingold: This is a campus-wide conversation, and there is documentation with examples. We probably need library-specific examples and clarity that there is not a single expectation for all faculty.
  • Clara Chu: How do we build DEIA work into the evaluation structure? Include on annual reviews? So this is not just something that comes up when it’s time to submit the dossier?
  • JJ Pionke: This sort of support seems like mentorship which the library has not historically practiced. It’s problematic not to have a mentorship program. Are PRCs meant to be mentors? If so, how will they mentor on DEIA and how will they be trained?
    • Chris Prom: Campus is developing a DEIA evaluation in P&T process training program. Compared to other schools, our PRC is stronger, but it is primarily evaluative rather than for mentoring. This topic calls for further conversation.
  • Alex Cabada: A barrier to DEIA work is a lack of perceived cultural competency and individuals fearing that they will create larger problems. Ambassadors to communities are needed for relationship building.
  • Bill Maher: There is a gap between the language of the document and the specific and varied types of work conducted across the library.
  • JJ Pionke: Members of marginalized communities are often put in a position where they need to educate others, increasing their burden.
    • Chris Prom: Many people in the library are already doing this work, but it’s not clearly defined or recognized.
  • Jessica Ballard: It’s important for those who do DEIA work to feel supported, and that they are not obligated to take on too much work – particularly those from marginalized communities.
    • Chris Prom: Will be important to recognize unequal service burdens.
  • Clara Chu: DEIA work must be recognized as a structural issue to be addressed, not an individual activity. Shared an example of conferences that prioritize voices from those new to the organization or who are members of marginalized communities.
  • Clara Chu: Will research support be available for DEIA work? Shared example of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill funding for a reckoning initiative that addresses structural injustices.
  • Further feedback can be shared with Chris Prom via email or by speaking with members of the task force.
  • John Wilkin:
    • Thanked Chris Prom for chairing committee.
    • Agreed in principle to the idea of supporting DEIA work with funding.
    • Supports plan to have regularly scheduled meeting on April 27.

4. Lightning Talks
5. New Business
6. Announcements

• Mara Thacker shares Jai Chakrabarti event.

 

7. Adjournment – 4:18