February 6, 2013 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Time and Location of Meeting

February 6, 20133:00 pm - 4:30 pm 126 GSLIS

Agenda Details


Call to Order


Standing Items:

Adoption of the Agenda – Chris Prom


Approval of Minutes – Chris Prom


Introductions – Chris Prom


Report of the University Librarian (15 min – Chris Prom for Paula Kaufman)


Executive Committee Discussion Items (15 min– Chris Prom)


FRC Discussion Topic:  FRC Annual Review Discussion  (15 minutes Jennifer Hain Teper and Melody Allison)

Lightning Round  (5 minutes)

  • Mortenson Center -Barbara Ford and Susan Schner
  • Media Commons Update -Eric Kurt
  • Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey  (Strategic Consulting + Research to transform scholarship) – Jen-Chen Yu

New Business





Minutes Details


Call to Order


Standing Items:

Adoption of the Agenda – Chris Prom.

Approval of Minutes – Chris Prom


Introductions –Paula Carns introduced Antonio Sotomayor.  He is the new Latin American and Caribbean Librarian.  He received his Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago.  Sue Searing introduced Dan Tracy, the Visiting Librarian for Library and Information Science and Research Support Services.  His office is in SSHEL.  He has a Ph.D. in English and an MLS from GSLIS.  Chris Prom introduced Bethany Anderson and Cara Bertram, both Academic Professionals who are Archival Operations and Specialists working in the University Archives.  Bethany is also working with the College of Engineering and has degrees from the University of Texas and the University of Chicago.  Cara has a degree in history with a concentration in archive management from the University of Western Washington.


Report of the University Librarian – Chris Prom for Paula Kaufman

Chris shared that there is not a lot of news about the budget for next year.  Some campus signals indicated that there may be a 5% cut, but the good news is that campus believes they can handle this cut.  Chris didn’t know the details, but did say this is provisional. Rod Allen also mentioned that this is not including any pension costs that might occur.  There might be changes to pension contributions and campus may be asked to pick up a percentage.


Executive Committee Discussion Items – Chris Prom

Chris reminded everyone that the Executive Committee (EC) agendas and minutes are on line, and will make sure that the recent ones are also posted.


  • There are two new service model teams: one for the University Archives and one for the Illinois History and Lincoln Collection.  Sue Searing is now the New Service Model Coordinator and will act as liaison.  The charges are available on the Executive Committee’s website (http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/exec/ExecutiveCommitteeMeetings2012-2013).
  • The Executive Committee (EC) recently reviewed a report from the eResearch Task Force.  This is an important initiative for the library and campus.  Chris urged everyone to review it, along with the recommendations for data management and eResearch on campus.  This topic was presented at the November 2012 faculty meeting and the report is available at: http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/exec/supplement/s2012-2013/eresearch_services_final_report.html
  • EC has been evaluating proposals for the hiring plan for campus.  An updated plan can be submitted to campus in February for critical positions to fill.  The current plan will be reviewed and Paula will submit it.


In response to a question by JoAnn Jacoby regarding flexibility for the new Dean of Libraries for hiring, Chris said that EC and Paula Kaufman have discussed leaving some money for the new Dean for positions for new initiatives.  Chris added that this is a moving target in terms of how many positions can be filled.  Rod Allen is trying to get clarification from the Provost’s office regarding numbers (both in terms of positions and money). He also mentioned that the pool of money depends on salary ranges. Presently the Library is planning to go forward with a complete list of needs, even if there is not enough money at this point.  In response to another question, Chris said that the list will be ranked, as in the past.


Chris provided an update on the Search Committee for the new Dean of Libraries.  The committee has been meeting every two weeks or so. The position description and announcement were posted.  The review of applications will begin February 15, although they are still in a very active recruiting phase.  He thanked everyone who was at ALA and reached out to other institutions to recruit individuals. He said that some people expressed interest based on those leads.  There is a two stage review process.  The first will be at the end of March with individuals selected to come to campus at the end of April. If you have questions or comments please feel free to contact a member of the search committee, especially with ideas of what should be included in the on campus schedule.


Discussion Topic:  Faculty Review Committee Annual Review Discussion-Jennifer Hain Teper

  • Comments regarding the Annual Report Process. Last year comment were received from people who wanted more feedback. Although the committee has always followed the procedure in Provost’s Communication 21, the committee looked at other colleges and departments, both on campus (such as the Curriculum and Instruction Department, the School of Music, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, and Social Work) and at similar institutions (such as Penn State and Ohio State) to see what they provide regarding process and feedback.  Compared with those they reviewed, we are doing pretty well regarding the amount of detail, time, review and feedback provided (in the upper half to quarter compared with others).
  • Take Aways from the Investigation:
    • o FRC (with Melody Alison as the new chair) will continue to look at the Curriculum and Instruction department’s example of providing a web form interface for entering information each year that provides a standardized format for adding additional information with output options in different formats.
    • o FRC will continue to look at the feedback this coming year and consider any future changes to the process.  They don’t want to keep changing it yearly. Immediate improvements include:
      • § Improve statistical analysis in letters and provide more context for scores. They found that the average that is given isn’t so meaningful.  They hope to manipulate this and first give the median (not just the average) and give the standard deviation (not just the outliers).  This should provide a better sense of dispursement, including a graphical representation of dispersal of scores.  They could provide this for service, research and librarianship and an aggregate score to see where you are within all of those and then median and standard deviation. Each individual, however, would need to find where his/her score sets within the graph.

  • § Provide additional feedback, not just numeric.  This year FRC will ask if people want a narrative feedback continue to consider more programmatic feedback for the coming years.


  • Comments/Questions:
    • o Tim Cole reminded everyone that if individuals don’t feel the annual review process is meeting their needs they can ask the Dean for more review and an explanation.
    • o Jennifer Hain Teper mentioned that there was an error in this year’s annual report process, in that the question pertaining to professional development was asked twice.  Melody Allison will send out an email correcting this.
    • o 0Y process clarification:  for FRC, those with OY status do NOT need to do a dossier.  They can choose to do a dossier with a cover sheet or just the annual report.
    • o Jenny Emmanuel suggested that it would be helpful for FRC to provide more positive feedback for improvements and an indication of what librarians are doing well, instead of just changes that need to be made.  Jennifer questioned that her comment seemed to refer to the PRC Report, not the Annual Report, and therefore should be directed to the Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee and will follow up with Mary Laskowski, the current chair.
    • o In response to a question from Lisa Hinchliffe asking if FRC noted if other institutions were integrating their annual report and promotion and tenure processes, Jennifer said that they hadn’t really looked for that, but recalls that most had separate processes, similar to ours, except for Curriculum and Instruction, which integrated the two.
    • o Lisa also asked if the investigation saw examples of other differentiation of review feedback depending upon stages in a career (such as associate versus full professor). Jennifer mentioned that the amount of feedback given for untenured is different from other positions.  She said that for those tenured, the main purpose of evaluations/feedback is for merit increases to deans, so most evaluations are the same across the board, but comments and feedback may be different for tenured, or untenured.
    • o Tim Cole asked about the formality of the mentoring process in other departments on campus and commented on the struggle for our Peer Review Committees between their evaluative roles and mentoring, and asked if we are doing the right type of mentoring. He also mentioned that mixing evaluation and mentoring sometimes doesn’t work well. Chris Prom responded that EC has been actively discussing this and believes they should be done in separate areas.  It is on the agenda for an upcoming set of meetings.  EC knows there are a large number of untenured and new people coming in untenured.  This discussion will come back in future faculty meetings/
    • o Qiang Jin offered that it would be helpful for librarians to be aware of research done by others.  Knowing who else is doing similar research might lead untenured librarians to individuals who could serve as consultants or collaborators.  She asked about ways to share this information.  Dan Tracy shared that he is working on creating more networking in the libraries to share the research they are doing.  Sarah Shreeves added that the Library is trying to promote presentations, publications and other things.  The “Faculty Excellence” blog is one way to keep track of ongoing research. She also mentioned “Connections” (Connections @ Illinois site: http://connections.ideals.illinois.edu), where faculty can list publications and grants” and “IDEALS”  (https://ideals.illinois.edu/) which has been populated with many publications and presentations.


Lightning Rounds (5 minutes)

  • Mortenson Center (http://www.library.illinois.edu/mortenson/)

Barbara Ford and Susan Schner provided an update pertaining to activities and their website.  They reported on several recent projects:

  • The Global Libraries (GL) project funded by the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation is now complete.  This project involved working with public libraries in Latvia and Romania to provide training to enhance services to their communities.  The report is available on the website.
  • The MacArthur Foundation and Carnegie Corporation provided six years of funding to work with academic libraries in Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda to help them automate.  These projects are now completed and reports are on the website.
  • READ Global, funded by the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation, is a new project to provide training for staff in community libraries in three countries (India, Bhutan and Nepal). Individuals from the Mortenson Center will go there to plan training for the library staff, with the country directors probably coming to the Mortenson Center in Fall 2014 to learn more to help them focus on their goals of education, enterprise and community development. The READ Global website is: http://readglobal.org/
  • Beyond Access, organized by IREX and funded by the Gates Foundation, is another initiative to help community libraries partner with development organizations, such as non-government organizations (NGOs).  Last year the Mortenson Center became partners and attended a meeting in Washington, DC with teams from 20 countries, each with a librarian, someone from an NGO, and a local government official.  This was a boot camp to train and work with ideas, with an award to several countries to continue the ideas.  The next step is to develop a curriculum to help them and then roll this idea out to other countries.  Indonesia is the first country and will do something similar. The next country will be South Africa and then someplace in Latin America.  The Beyond Access website is: http://www.beyondaccess.net/
  • Barbara mentioned that the Mortenson Center also received a little money to rebrand the Mortenson Center materials and website and hopes to be able to improve the design.  They also received money to learn more about how to evaluate programs.  Arabella, (a not for profit consulting group) has been working with them to develop a theory of change as well as to understand how best to present information in different sectors.  Arabella is working with the Mortenson Center to develop concrete assessment data and a model to use for assessment in the future.
  • Barbara also thanked the librarians for their support of the work of the Mortenson Center and for sharing their expertise and ideas with visiting librarians.
  •   Media Commons Update -Eric Kurt – Preliminary website: http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/mc/

Eric provided an overview of the new Media Commons at the Undergraduate Library.  This is a joint effort between the Library and CITES Academic Technology Services and funded by Library/IT fee money.  After a year of planning, the first phase is now operational.  The goal is to spark interest for people to learn more about the technologies, along with providing support and consultations. He provided highlights of how it can assist Library personnel, students, staff and faculty.  Among the services and zones are:


  • Loanable technology.  The Media Commons has acquired a very robust collection of technology, accessories and equipment to support multimodal projects (especially related to video production) that can be checked out.
  • A presentation gallery, with a large flat screen (with Apple TV computer hookup) for a workshop or open presentation and general interest ideas
  • Gaming zone:  for gaming research, or recreational use
  • Mobile prototyping:  which provides support and services for those interested in this – including office hours and working on projects, demos, workshops
  • High end media editing- four stations
  • Help desk space—with consultation experts from various departments on campus to help with editing, digital media, instructional technology and project work. There are currently various drop in hours available, as well as consultation services offered.
  • Collaboration spaces:  there are various configurations, but now three collaboration tables there (and additional ones in the collaboration rooms on the floor) that allow multiple laptops to plug in and project on flat screens.  These are highly used as meeting spaces and group work for 6- 8 people. These spaces can be reserved or are first-come, first served. They can be useful for small staff training as well.
  • CITES Media Commons lab—the stations are now expanded throughout the media commons, with new collaborative furniture (not just in a corner)
  • Video Production Studio—we are now in the process of converting room 295 to be a professional video production studio for higher production video and audio. Special training will be available for faculty, staff, and students who need to do special projects that require higher level value (not just introductory video).  Examples could be interviews, podcasts, production, etc.
  • Room 289 will be used for training sessions and library staff can book that room for workshops, or instruction (if there is a need for individual workstations).  The room can be booked through CITES at: http://www.cites.illinois.edu/ics/undergrad_library.html with an email request to: reserve@ics.illinois.edu


In response to some questions, Eric mentioned that we are working with disability services to assure accessibility.  He also mentioned that in addition to the times during the week when there are scheduled drop in hours with technology experts, he can be contacted with questions via his email ekurt@illinois.edu and can arrange for consultations.  If he is unavailable he could do an initial consult by phone, but may point them to resources available online. The web site is in the beginning stages, but will soon offer training options and FAQs for technology use, including software, hardware and production questions


  • Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey  (Strategic Consulting + Research to transform scholarship) – Jen-Chen Yu

Jen showed the web page [http://go.library.illinois.edu/survey] for this survey and reminded everyone that we received the email invitation for the faculty survey. This was sent to 3,115 full time instructional faculty.  It is not a satisfaction survey like Libqual, but is more about researching and finding out information about faculty research and teaching activities and what resources they need from information research providers.  In response to a question, Jen mentioned that if there are questions that don’t apply to you it is possible to skip those and continue with the survey. She also showed the FAQ page about the survey [http://www.library.illinois.edu/assessment/ithakasurvey/index.html].  The survey closes on Feb. 23rd and within three weeks the summary and raw data will be provided.  After an internal review the results will be shared with the library and then the Assessment Committee will generate conversations with faculty regarding data.

Jen asked for assistance in recruiting more faculty to take the survey.  In addition to the email invitation, information will be sent through Inside Illinois and Eweek.  Another email reminder will go out on Valentine’s day.

New Business




Adjournment  4:15