July 10, 2013 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Time and Location of Meeting

July 10, 20133:00 pm - 4:30 pm 126 GSLIS

Agenda Details


Call to Order

  • Adoption of the Agenda – Paula Kaufman
  • CIS Shared Repository (Tom Teper 10 minutes)
  • Approval of Minutes – Paula Kaufman
  • Introductions – Paula Kaufman
  • Report of the University Librarian (15 min – Paula Kaufman)
  • Executive Committee Discussion Items (10 min)

Discussion Topics:

  • SWOT discussion. Led by a member of the Executive Committee (15 minutes) 3:00-3:15
  • Zero Time Appointment Request. Led by a member of the Executive Committee (5 minutes)
  • Peer Review Committee Discussion (to outline and clarify the existing relationship between a PRC and a candidate). Document was posted. Led by a member of the Executive Committee (10 minutes)

Lightning Rounds (5 minutes):

  • Rethinking Unit Annual Reports (Sue Searing)
  • Technology Prototyping Service Update: Snapshot Module and Near-Semantic Search (Jim Hahn)
  • ITHAKA Faculty survey- executive summary (Jen Chen)

New Business



Minutes Details


Call to Order – Paula Kaufman


Adoption of the Agenda – The agenda was approved with a motion by Mary Laskowski and seconded by Lura Joseph.


CIC Shared Print Repository Discussion. Tom Teper provided an overview and PowerPoint of the CIC (Committee on International Cooperation) shared print repository activities.  This is a cooperative solution to a number of local problems that the CIC membership is trying to address.  The facility is at Indiana University (Bloomington). Tom noted that the preservation of journal content over the years has been a challenge for all institutions.  What has emerged as a solution to approaches the problem in a number of ways, including through member-supported 3rd party suppliers. Electronic content is archived (largely – although not exclusively) through Portico..  Even with electronic access, there is a desire to preserve print collections. But, the question is how many copies need to be held collectively? Tom mentioned various consortia that are creating nodes of excellence for various publications. Like them, we can look at collecting one copy and then deduplicating others across member institutions.


Some of the milestones we’ve crossed in the last decade include 3 million volumes now at the Oak Street off-site storage facility; a recommendation in 2009 by the Library Executive Committee (EC) to deduplicate our print journal holdings; and a main/UGL Library feasibility study in 2009 and 2010 to build an automated storage facility. In their 5/20/2013 meeting, EC endorsed recommendations from the Humanities Hub New Service Model (NSM) that called to develop criteria that would eventually shift the Stacks collection in the direction of predominantly being one housing social science and humanities collections.  It is estimated that there are only 5 more years of growth (at the current rate) at the Oak Street facility. Because the likelihood to build more storage is slim to none Tom indicated that planning for the renovation of the Main and Undergraduate Libraries and providing the best preservation environment we can for both materials commonly held and unique holdings, we need to take advantage of the shared network.


Tom briefly discussed the CIC shared print repository (SPR).  The holdings are for a shared membership with a 25 year agreement to hold volumes.  We are looking at overlap.  At present, UIUC has about 29,000 volumes that are backfiled in Elsevier and held in the CIC SPR.  There has been a decline in retrieval for Elsevier print content, with nearly all requests being for Interlibrary Loan requests by external constituents.  Additionally, we are looking at deduplicating titles like “Nature” and “Science,” including at the Oak Street facility. This will free up more space to preserve materials that are more scarcely held (e.g. rare or area studies materials with few copies in the world).  This could equate to 29,000 volumes (about 2000 shelves of storage) which would mean the equivalent of one floor of the entire west stack being open for manuscripts, rare books etc.


The next step is to deduplicate “Science” and “Nature” from the Oak Street facility, then deduplicate Elsevier content in Oak St, and then Stacks. If individual units want to dedup the material they can work with Content Management Services (CMS) to do the bibliographic work.  After the Elsevier titles are finished, we could move on to Springer, Wiley, and then society publications.




Bill Maher raised a concern about deduping without checking if what we have is a complete copy, especially since we are a library with national importance. He noted that sometimes content isn’t always filmed (like a map) and asked how trusted the individuals at Elsevier are, especially for making sure everything is filmed. Tom responded that this issue has been raised professionally and Elsevier has tried to improve it. We only need to look at the work of Lura Joseph in helping to address this.


With respect to the CIC SPR, Tom mentioned that Indiana took the 50,000 volumes they had out of their storage facility and did an issue by issue evaluation to see if everything was present and then put the issue back on the shelf.  The same can be said for items coming from Ohio State.  There may be pages missing, but given the logistical implications of page by page evaluation of 60,000 books—it’s not possible to catch everything.  He said they at least verified that each issue was there, and then listed gaps, which they then fill by going out through other CIC institutions. There are now over 29,000 items that have been accessioned into the repository that match locally help materials.  Bill agreed that this seemed like a reasonable approach.  JoAnn Jacoby also added that with the regional repositories in the west and east there is a good likelihood of a copy that is complete.  Tom referred to an Ithaka report that was done that found that the maximum number of items that need to be held is about 6 copies someplace in the country.


Approval of Minutes – Paula Kaufman.  There was a motion by Beth Sandore to approve the minutes from April 17. It was seconded by Bill Maher and approved.


Introductions – Paula Kaufman

  • Bill Mischo introduced Christie Wiley, who is the Engineering Research and Data Services Librarian at Grainger Library.  She holds an MLS from Florida State and came from the National Oceanographic and Regional Library in Miami.
  • Erin Kerby is also new at the Veterinary Medicine Library


Report of the University Librarian- Paula Kaufman

  • Hiring Plan.  Paula said that it might be at least two weeks before we hear anything about the plan that was submitted to the provost. The provost will begin looking at all of the plans on Friday.  There are requests for many more than the 500 new faculty positions that were announced.
  • Budget Meeting. There is a meeting of the Budget Group tomorrow and an open meeting for Library staff on August 5, when Paula will explain what the Library received and where it will be spent.  Last year there was about 5 million dollars uncommitted from the Library IT fee that was split between the Library and CITES.  The plan is to use our portion over 2 years.  Some money that was committed to projects will then be available in FY14 when the projects are done.  She mentioned that we received some money for catch-up for Engineering collection content, but will provide more details when everything is sorted out.
  • Dean’s Meeting. There will be a speaker series tied to the Visioning Future Excellence themes. The Committee working on this is chaired by Donna Cox and Robin Kaler. There was a lot of discussion about where this is going.  Antonio Sotomayor is representing the Library on the committee. Paula commented that it is nice to have this speaker series with high profile people who will be brought to campus to engage campus in the big issues from Visioning Future Excellence, but asked what the goal is of all of that? How does that fit into a time-line of what’s going to happen with Visioning Future Excellence? The Chancellor wasn’t at the meeting, so those questions weren’t addressed.
  • MOOC Strategy Committee. This committee is co-chaired by Lori Kramer from ACES and Chuck Tucker from the Provost’s office.  They are looking at strategies and they have a PowerPoint about why we should be in the game, but not completely engaged.  A call was put out last year for proposals for new courses. People who teach these courses are getting no extra money. The MOOCS are an instructive technology and an instructive approach. It’s hard to know if they will be sustainable or if the instruction will be productive or not, but there is clearly an appetite for on-line learning. The use of copyright materials in MOOC courses is complicated; so is the use of software in countries subject to export restrictions by the U.S. government.  In the news today it was announced that Coursera (the system used at UIUC) has received $43 million in venture capital.


Sue Searing mentioned that the Library lobbied, unsuccessfully, to get a librarian on the MOOC Strategy Committee, but encouraged us to bring up the issues that Paula brought up, whenever MOOCs are discussed.  Paula mentioned that Paul Hixson (CIO) is on the committee and a good person to talk with.  There is also a group within CIC lobbying for a MOOC platform and to create courses, although Illinois is not part of that group. She also mentioned that Blackboard announced it now has a MOOC software platform.


The question about charges for enrollment in the course came up. Coursera and other MOOCs charge a small amount for certification of having completed all the course requirements. There was also a comment that inside higher education there are anti MOOC campaigns so it is important to keep perspectives.  Paula encouraged everyone to sign up for a MOOC course (lurk even) to get understand how the courses work and to interact with the many students who take the course from all over the world.  She mentioned that it might be difficult for the general population to find (get access to) some items on the list of readings, such as films, articles etc., and indicated that we need to be thinking about what the University’s responsibility is for this access if we offer MOOCs.  She also questioned what the strategy and effort will be if 10’s of thousands of people sign up (fully engaged or passive), if we can find a space in there to provide better quality teaching (TAs and others working with students), and if we can both make money and provide higher quality.  For more information on MOOCS at UIUC, please see: http://mooc.illinois.edu/.


Executive Committee Discussion Items – David Ward, for Chris Prom

  • David Ward presented to Paula (on behalf of EC) a short resolution to be read into the minutes.  This was greeted with applause by the faculty and a hug from Paula to David.  The resolution read was:

On behalf of the Library faculty and staff, the Executive Committee would like to recognize and thank Paula Kaufman for her significant leadership contributions as our University Librarian and Dean of Libraries for the past 14 years.  Through her efforts the Library has developed in program strength and standing, and ranks among the top research libraries in the world.  Under her leadership the University Library has evolved as a research library and developed dynamic, innovative services for diverse audiences and advanced stewardship of print and digital scholarship.  Among Paula’s many accomplishments, EC recognizes her support in advancing shared governance, supporting staff and faculty development, and raising awareness of the University of Illinois Library’s accomplishments on the national and international stage.

  • Report from EC.  The past few meetings included conversations about the hiring plan that EC had been working on with AULs and they are now waiting for campus follow-up. EC continued appointing Peer Review Committees.  The committee also sent out two New Service Models (NSM) for comments – the Archives NSM and the Illinois History and Lincoln Collections NSM.  These were discussed, approved and are moving forward.


Discussion Topics

  • Zero Time Appointment Request for Maria Bonn – David Ward.  The document for this was previously sent out to faculty.  David Ward asked if there was any discussion before the vote.  There was none.  The motion to approve the appointment was made by Barbara Ford and seconded by Mary Laskowski with unanimous approval.
  • SWOT/New University Librarian Discussion – David Ward. In addition to the SWOT analysis that each unit was to provide, David Ward explained the steps EC would like to take to create a document (with bullet points) on issues we feel would be important for the new Dean to see. He asked for feedback on topics, such as shared governance and what it means here, to put into the document.  The goal of the document is to help frame things that might be helpful for the new Dean and will smooth the transition.


The following are suggestions that were contributed at the meeting:

  • Bylaws and recommendation to get the latest version of Michael Grossman’s outline of the nature of shared governance (Mary Mallory can locate). There was also a concern that the bylaws may be inaccurate.
  • Peer Review Committee information
  • The promotion and tenure document that is sent out.
  • Present examples of administration decisions that have to be made and which need to be run by EC or different division structure to avoid missteps.
  • Summary of  things that are currently being discussed and timeline that talks about major things that need to be done and what the University Librarian (UL) is responsible for and needs to tackle (annual reports, budget reports etc.).
  • Link to New Service Model reports— recent history.  Joann Jacoby can send the link to the Stanford document for higher level as well.
  • The appropriate piece of University statutes that refers to the UL and charge for the senate of the library.  Paula mentioned that when she came here she got a book with photographs in the phone book and a SWOT she had asked for.
  • Communication 9 (all of them and what they cover).
  • Top things on our agenda for the next 6 months from this group.  Also a list of places where groups meet and a suggestion to set up meetings with the UL in those various places with the groups. Also include some time in each meeting for the UL to ask questions about the unit or history.  It is useful to have conversations with people who have the history.
  • Background on libraries on campus with a different administrative place than the university library (such as Law, Residence Hall, Prairie Research Institute).
  • Visual resources, such as websites with pictures, brief descriptions, “A day in the Life of a Library” sites.
  • How to orient to campus, although the dean’s will have an orientation program and a senior administrator seminar in August for department heads and deans.
  • Welcoming party?  Paula had one.
  • Have a forum or short retreat or Q and A on shared governance? – perhaps an early one and then EC could keep some of things central and make sure they are brought up as needed.
  • Paula Kaufman mentioned that the Vice Chancellor of Institutional Advancement has asked each officer getting a new dean to prepare a 100 day plan to get acquainted with things like donors etc. so he will have a full plate.


David said the document will most likely be in bullet form with links and appendices of important documents and prepared within the next week and urged people to continue sending suggestions to EC.


  •   Peer Review Committee Discussion– Lynne Rudasill and Carissa Phillips
    • Lynne had previously sent out a document that covered the responsibilities of a Peer Review Committee (PRC).  She mentioned that the genesis of the work was that every year we prepare PRC reports and annual reports and we have a lot of new faculty members on tenure track and continuing members on tenure track who could benefit from clarification of responsibilities.  She mentioned the ongoing discussion of whether a PRC is a mentoring group or evaluative group.  The document that was sent out explained this.  They asked for comments from the document or other items or clarification.
    • Carissa mentioned that one comment that should be included is the helpfulness of seeing redacted dossier examples and she and Lynne indicated that librarians can ask the University Librarians office for examples.
    • The document also attempts to impress upon the candidate (from the beginning) that the dossier and process is the candidate’s responsibility and that the candidate will succeed, or not, on his or her efforts, not on that of the PRC, even though many will help.  Lynne asked for people to send comments to her or Carissa.  It will then go to EC to be formalized and put up on the web.
    • Barbara Ford added that Paula Kaufman has been great about checking in with new faculty and hopes the new dean will be able to as well, but encouraged us all to help support new faculty in any way we can.  She also wondered if something should be in the document about getting help outside the PRC.  Lynne suggested that if someone needs guidance and doesn’t know who to go to, or needs a mentor, they can go to the Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (PTAC) and ask where to go for support. She said it should be part of the training for incoming librarians to tell them where to go, as is done for travel money etc. and that Human Resources  (HR) and EC should both be involved in providing that type of documentation for new faculty, car rental, $$ etc.


Lightning Rounds

  •    Rethinking Unit Annual Reports – Sue Searing
    • Sue said she will be sending out unit annual report information tomorrow with a due date of August 9.  She shared that she was disappointed with how many people missed the deadline or didn’t even do it last year and that this year she’ll lean hard on people. She thinks the reports will be useful to the new University Librarian to get a lay of the land.
    • There are some changes to the new template, including taking out the need to include strategic initiatives.  It will still be important to include major activities, challenges, changes, contributions, and progress.  The narrative portion can only be 8 pages. Units with GAs still need to report on GA numbers, funding, responsibilities, contributions. The statistics part will still require personnel, categories and dates and then student assistant budget and FTE.  Jen-chien Yu put together, on the G: drive, data that is available, such as seating, hours open, usage measures (gate count, circulation, reference, presentations/instruction and optional local statistics).  Much is available through sweeps week and databases.  Sue said it is still important to report other measures that make sense, as well to keep track of what is done year to year.
    • Jen and Sue will have a drop-in annual report clinic on Monday, July 15, 3:30 to 4:30 in Library 314.
    • In response to including staff pictures (group) in the report for the new University Librarian, Sue said that would be fine, as well as any appendices, such as programs, flyers, newsletters. Last year it was voted that this be open web so she advised us to make sure people are comfortable with pictures or information that will be open to the public.
    • Technology Prototyping Service Update: Snapshot Module and Near Semantic Search – Jim Hahn
      • Jim reported on two projects that are interconnected; the Snapshot Module and the Near Semantic Search. The snapshot module is built on the near semantic search and built with data mining research assistants from computer science.  There are 6 students working in the technology prototyping service this summer.
      • Other activities they are working on are:
        • iWonder- IM which would be a replacement for our chat (virtual reference) service. The first round of testing took place in June.  There will be more testing after further code rewrite and debugging
        • Events mobile app module
        • Trending service (reported on last meeting)
        • Main stacks wayfinding app—new location in wayfinding module
        • Rewriting location services to iOS (summer interns)
  • The Snapshot Module is an optical character recognition software on the phone  that allows the user to hold up the phone and  take a picture/snapshot of a word (in a student assignment sheet , for example).  It takes a string of text and sends it to a semantic search in the Library Catalog which suggests a book title, based on the scanned text. It brings back related books and subjects.  Jim and the students are using formative evaluation to shape the service early on.
  • The Near Semantic Search Interface–On some PowerPoint slides Jim showed an initial results page with the association by facets.  The group reworked the public data search screen to create a hierarchy of data mining results.  They are still reshaping the semantic search interface display.
  • Jim also mentioned that they are using BitBuckket (https://bitbucket.org)  , which  is a code repository for prototyping outputs and management and he is using Trello to manage projects (an iOS, as well as a web based service)  so he can see what students do, and they can do updates on the phone.  The website for Trello is trello.com and the accounts are free.  The iOS app is also a free download.
  • Susan Avery asked if there was any possibility to search for articles (the first year writing students are not expected to find books).  Jim responded that it may be possible.  If we did a search for all article databases, like Primo, we would run into similar problems with the article metadata that Primo has (irrelevant results). He said it would be interesting to apply thesauri data mining to EBSCO. They currently use LC subject headings but it would be interesting to point the book search to the “Easy Search” API as a possible next step. Alternatively, EBSCO API may be used here, too.


New Business- none



Barbara Ford mentioned that Sept. 17 is the next Mortenson Distinguished lecture and will include 4 librarians from Nepal and India who built Libraries in rural areas. There will be a reception after the lecture.


On September 8 and 9 there will be a HathiTrust Research Center Uncamp un-conference. For more information see http://www.hathitrust.org/htrc_uncamp2013


Lynne Rudasill reminded everyone of the State department grant to host 30 high school teachers here.  Lynne had sent a message asking for volunteers to help show them local events.  The basic theme is “Exploring American Character”.  If you are interested please let her know.


Becky Smith mentioned that she was a moderator at ALA for a publisher forum—Discovery service.  She said the slides should be up in a couple months (googlizing). She said EBSCO is doing more work and she said she was able to give complaints to them about their lousy platform for business.


Adjourned 4:15.

Related Documents