June 13, 2018 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Time and Location of Meeting

June 13, 2018

Agenda Details


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda

June 13, 2018

3:00-4:30 pm

126 iSchool



  1. Call to Order


  1. Standing Items
    1 Adoption of the agenda
    2.2 Approval of the Minutes of the April 2018 Faculty Meeting
    2.3 Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)
    2.4 Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Nancy O’Brien)
    2.5 Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)3. Discussion Items

3.1 Responsibilities of Associate University Librarians (30 minutes – John Wilkin)


  1. New Business5. Announcements

    6. Adjournment

Minutes Details


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Library Faculty Meeting Notes

June 13, 2018

3:00-4:30 pm

126 iSchool


  1. Call to Order


  1. Standing Items

2.1 Adoption of the agenda: Nancy O’Brien moved, Tom Teper seconded.   The motion was approved.

2.2 Approval of the Minutes of the April 2018 Faculty Meeting: Sara Benson moved, Mara Thacker seconded.  The minutes were approved.

2.3 Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin): no new employees were introduced.

2.4 Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Nancy O’Brien)


EC has met six times since the April faculty meeting.

In general activities, EC discussed position requests, search committee members, and peer review committees for recent appointments.

The Room 220 Planning Team Implementation Report was reviewed and sent back for some additional information.

Requests from committees to increase members (Library Assessment), award funding for specific needs, and revise charges (RPC) were considered.

Discussions of recent vacancies were held with suggestions for ways to fill such vacancies on a case-by-case basis as they arise.

EC began reviewing committee appointments using the list of volunteers and will continue to work on those appointments.

A question came up regarding committee term limits and whether a third term is possible in some instances after serving two consecutive terms. EC will refer this question to the Bylaws committee for review since there is variation among committees.

A document called the Library Open Access Policy was approved by the Collection Development Committee. EC determined that this is a statement and not a policy and recommended that it be listed as a statement on the CDC webpage.

A Diversity Statement for position description s was presented to EC and approved for inclusion in future position descriptions. It will also be sent to the Diversity Committee for its information.

John Wilkin discussed how he is continuing to reach out to campus units to get feedback about the proposed Main Library building project.

In addition, regular reports about the Library Building Project will be provided by Tom Teper through Library email lists or Library Office Notes.

Additional activities of the Executive Committee can be found in the minutes linked from the Library’s committee webpage.

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


The process to determine what we do with the building project will be inclusive, both of campus stakeholders and library staff.  Only general direction has been determined.  Campus support has been encouraging; people remember that it has been on the campus plan for years.  The state budget includes capital support for the first time in a long time.  At John’s last meeting with the Provost this was what the Provost wanted to talk about most.  Campus conversations continue.  John met with social science and humanities chairs in LAS and history and English chairs separately.  Everyone was eager to help us get there.  One of the trustees, Stuart King, toured the library recently, facilitated by Jeff Schrader.  He was impressed and will send a letter with John to the rest of the trustees.  It will go out Friday.


Other issues addressed in the meeting with the Provost were how successful the Library is within the BTAA and how other groups can learn from us.  This is a good sign of investment in the Library.  There are more indications that we will see inflationary support for collections and support for College of Medicine collections.  There will be a salary program.


The university is looking for homes for people formerly affiliated with UIC College of Medicine.  John is talking to Bruce Schatz (bioinformatics) about an appointment in the library.  There are no budget implications positive or negative for this move.  He needs a faculty home.


The AULs and John met with Illinois Human Resources about the civil service system audit process.  More formal announcements will be coming.  We got encouraging feedback that well-defined professional positions in the Library will have a solid footing in the review process, but no promises.

Nancy O’Brien: Do we need a vote on Schatz’s appointment?


Mara Thacker: Last time we did an online ballot for a zero percent appointment.


Sara Benson: How does AP review relate to promotion process?


John: The AP promotion process will be in place for the beginning of next academic year.  Evaluations are separate.  Please finish AP and open range civil service evaluations as soon as possible so information can be used in the promotion process.


  1. Discussion Items

3.1 Responsibilities of Associate University Librarians (30 minutes – John Wilkin)


John: The purpose of this agenda item is to have a robust discussion.  This is not intended as a way to fix something that is broken.  It is important to question fundamentals and consider possible synergies.  We have a collaborative culture and everything we do should reinforce that.  We are at a point where it’s time to move forward.  John will work with EC to have AUL/

AULs in place for upcoming contract year.


Tom Teper: John asked Tom and Cherie’ to lead an open conversation.  They looked at other colleges on campus and how they were organized, but there’s not a lot of commonality with us or among colleges.  Conversation with EC turned to functional areas and roles.


Cherie’: Collections, Public Services, Tech Services, Outreach, Liaison, Assessment, Collection Management, HR/Facilities, etc..  This is not a new conversation—Cherie has been talking to different AULs for different issues rather than reporting to one AUL since Sue was AUL for services.  We looked at this a couple of years ago and didn’t want to report up and down a hierarchy.


Nancy O’Brien: Agrees that we can approach different AULs with different issues, but doesn’t want to have too many AULs to divide questions among.


Cherie: The list of areas is not intended to be one person per area.


John: Three to four AULs total is what he has in mind.


Paula Carns: She also has gone to different AULs with different issues.  If this is about reporting lines, we should balance number of reports among AULs.


Cherie: She agrees, and talked about this issue during the AUL for services search.  Two AULs is not enough. Example: An AUL needs to talk to every job candidate.


Tom: It is hard to find availability with just two people.


Lynne Rudasill: It’s a matter of who we can go to to solve our problems.  Two is too few.  Units report to AULs, not each individual.  She would want a research support element in responsibilities.


Bill Mischo: other institutions are combining roles for AULs, i.e., Instruction and Research


Tom Teper: There is an AUL for Distinctive Collections at OSU


Mara Thacker: Bring in Outreach and Public Engagement responsibilities to one of the AULs’ scope.


Tom: How does Heather Murphy fit into that scenario?


Mara Thacker: Communications and liaison roles are intertwined, so bringing those threads together would help.


Heidi: The Office of Research relied on Beth for strategic communications.


Joe Lenkart: There are longstanding needs in grants processing/external funding help


Mary Laskowski: If we are looking at functional areas dependent on people who are available to do the work, how does that affect the org chart?  We do not want to assign units in a way that changes with each change in AUL.


John Wilkin: We often ask users to follow an organizational path through the library to figure out who to talk to.


Kyle Rimkus: We have talked about backfill for AULs.  What is the current thinking about this?


John: We have to do it, and it will be hard in areas where we are not already deep.  We are committed to backfill.


Kyle: if someone becomes an AUL, will a faculty line open up in their area?


John: Candidates should make a case for what needs are in their area.  Conservation and Preservation is another area.  Where does Scholarly Communication and Publishing belong?


Sara Benson: Scholarly Communication and Publishing fit well in research, and could include support for grants in the library.


Bill Mischo: We are all doing scholarly communication work.


Lynne Thomas: Were we happy with the way duties were distributed among AULs before?


Cherie’: yes, when she was CAS head.  No, as an AUL.


Tom: He used to have an AUL position without reports, and now does have reports.  Direct reports are more relationships, and are not burdensome.  Duties accrete for AULs, and it is hard to do everything as well as before.  He gave up HR duties, and some service duties are a lot of work. For example, paper editing is time consuming and takes a lot out of editors.  Tom has not been unhappy with the load, but has smaller personnel load and bigger budget load.  Beth had smaller load than either collections or services.


John: Was distribution between services and collections meaningful?


Tom: The fit between technical services and public services was a disaster.  It was cobbled together before John’s time and required Tom to spend even more time with tech services folks.


John: Synergies between things with “service” in their name can be misleading.


Mary Laskowski: She is less concerned with areas and more concerned with who is in positions.


Heidi: Categorizing units does not work.


Joe Lenkhart: AULs need a team to help with functional roles.  We need to stabilize the system and create consistency.


Lynne Rudasill: Grant writing is a lot more than talking to one person, and Beth used to coordinate.  Would like to see that role continue.


Tom: Do we need formal organization to support areas or do we need working groups of the right people?


Lynne Rudasill: We need people to come together around areas.


Tom: How do we avoid having so many overlapping groups that people can’t do their own work?


Lynne Rudasill: We can figure it out, could be a percent appointment or a specific time commitment.


Joe Lenkart: David talked at a meeting about team structure.


John: focusing on people in roles is important and should be primary criteria.


  1. Building project (Tom Teper)

Jeff, Heather, Wendy, and Tom have been meeting to talk about how to get project started, and are mostly talking about communication right now.  They are developing terminology to refer to things in a meaningful way and refer to the project in a way that encompasses its full scope.  Terms stick, even if they are provisional.  Library Building Project is the overarching term.  Main Library Building, Special Collections Building, and Instructional Facility are under umbrella of this overarching term.  They are working on a website to help Advancement and communication with campus.  Tom will give monthly updates to outline where the process is.  Working groups are being formed for planning, advancement, and facilities.

F&S has assigned Dennis Craig as project coordinator.  We are at third stage of program planning and design.  We are working with architects to figure out what is possible at this point.  We are about a month behind proposed schedule.  Next steps: John, Jeff, and Tom have talked about things to kick off summer and early fall.  One is a group to talk about operational programming.  What will instructional needs be?  What will Scholarly Commons and Media Commons need?  We need to document needs for the architectural firm to use as a starting point.  Tom is working on a charge, so that our work can be completed in August or September.  John has talked about foregrounding collections on campus, and how important they are to the institution going forward.  He wants to make collection decisions in a way that avoids the kind of coverage that other libraries have been getting in the Chronicle.  A group of collection managers and subject liaisons will work on collections issues for general collections.  This group will work in late summer/early fall.  A Student Experience group will start in the fall, drawing on the Dean’s student advisory committee and others.  Another group with work on fostering interdisciplinary engagement.  How do we bring social science/humanities/arts faculty together to talk about what the library can do for them?  Lastly, special collections.  The Special Collections Division is talking with Tom and John and with each other about their needs and concerns.  Not only are we putting units together in a new building, we are changing the culture of the division.  How do they work together in closer proximity?  Tom wants to do something similar to Urbana’s survey about ideas for Lincoln Square with library staff.  This is a lot of change over a long period of time, and how do we help our colleagues to work through change constructively?  How can we avoid transferring stress to others inside and outside the library?  We need to be mindful of other stresses of our jobs.

Paula Carns: It is very important to wrap our minds around how we present the project to potential new hires.

John: This taps into what we do well, relationships with faculty.  Can we use that collaborative work to define project?

Laila Moustafa: She is excited about interdisciplinary aspect.  Can we include campus stakeholders in planning?

John: That is exactly what we’ve had in mind.  Current discussions with John Randolph and others is about what they’d like to see in the new space.

Kyle Rimkus: How are we working with architects?

Tom: The project goes out for bid.  There is a process for this that may go faster than some other things we do.


  1. New Business: none


Lynne Rudasill: Howerton Scholarship applications are open to support travel to present scholarship for GAs.  Deadline will be September 1.

Dan Tracy: The Digital Scholarship Institute is sponsored by ARL, and is a general introduction to digital scholarship.  The third one starts at the end of July.  We are involved in planning as well as sending people.  Antonio, David, Carissa have attended.

John Wilkin: I heard good feedback on the BTAA conference that was held here.

Lynne Rudasill: Steve Witt successfully defended his dissertation.  Title VI applications are due tomorrow.

Tom Habing: The iPres conference is coming to our campus in 2021.  It has previously been in places like London and Shanghai.

JoAnn Kazmarek: John has been submitted as possible chair; someone at RIMS was primary proposer.

Mara Thacker: First Comic conference starts on August 10.

Cherie’: get your photos taken for superhero card.

  1. Adjournment at 4:20: Lynne Rudasill moved, Nancy O’Brien seconded.