June 20, 2011 Meeting of Administrative Council

Time and Location of Meeting

June 20, 20111:30 pm - 3:00 pm 428 Library

Agenda Details

Agenda

  1. Budget update (Rod  Allen)
  2. Discussion with the EC subgroup charged to look at the structure of Divisions (Karen Hogenboom)
  3. 3.    Library IT updates: IT security awareness training; the upgrade of the G & H drives storage; and Unified communications. (Beth Sandore and Jason Strutz)
  4. CIC’s Shared Print Archive – (Tom Teper)
  5. 5.    Upgrade of the ORR: recommendation from CAPT.

Minutes Details

Attendees

Beth Sandore (chair), Tina Chrzastowski, Mary Laskowski, Lisa Romero, Scott Schwartz, Marek Sroka, Caroline Szylowicz, Tom Teper, Cherie Weible, Gil Witte, Greg Youngen, Rod Allen, Karen Hogenboom, Jason Strutz

Minutes

  1. 1.    Budget update (Rod  Allen)

What we do know:

  • All or part of the fee requests will probably be funded, including $250K for minimum wage, which frees up $250K for other things.
  • 50% of last year’s 6.2% cut (3.1% or $681K) that was set aside is permanently taken away, even before the FY12 budget.
  • Paula attended a CARLI board meeting where she learned that the Library’s OCLC contract will cost $102K less next year. Beth added that if the Library went alone compared to contracting with OCLC, the Library would save no money, and probably incur greater costs (because it would take more time). This $102K will be available for some other purpose.
  • An additional ~$200K will be available for FY12.

What we don’t know:

  • The University received less of a cut than was expected, however there will still be reductions across campus, and these will not be equally distributed.
  • The salary plan is unknown at this time. Whether the provost funds the salary plan or it is funded by the college/unit will vary across campus. We will probably have to fund something.
  • Because the hiring process takes so long, the Library’s academic pool has accumulated funds which may end up being used for reductions. Last Friday a plan was submitted for FY12 however we haven’t heard anything yet, and won’t for a while.
  • The Library’s reclassification pool has a deficit right now. Funds will have to be allocated to this.
  • We have no idea when the Library will know something about the FY12 budget. At this time, meetings are a moving target—the president wants to be involved in the process.

Comments/Questions:

  • Cherié asked if the salary plan will vary by college. Rod stated this isn’t known yet, and that no definite percentage has been announced at this point. The Library will probably have to fund civil service salary increases internally.
  • Beth asked if this year’s plan will excluded AP’s and Open Range CS employees as it did last year. Rod’s understands everyone will be included for FY12.
  • Rod said campus will ask us to set some money aside for retention.
  1. Discussion with the EC subgroup charged to look at the structure of Divisions (Karen Hogenboom) EC’s  mission for creating the subgroup is to ask questions and gather information to be used to assess the Library’s current division structure. Because units are consolidating and operating with fewer people, most divisions are becoming smaller. The goal of this process is to find ways to be more efficient and effective in light of these changes. Discussion took a question/answer/comment format resulting in the following points about 1) what divisions still do well, 2) in what ways they no longer function optimally, and 3) if we did have more time and flexibility, are there other roles Divisions could perform?
  • This charge is not necessarily about getting rid of the division structure, but to determine if divisions are the best reporting structure or if some better options exist. There is no concrete timeline, but information-gathering as a first step in assessment (not to generate a proposal for action).
  • EC will look into any statutory requirements that are currently addressed by having the division structure in place. Division by-laws require and describe the responsibilities of a coordinator who calls regular meetings, deals with P&T issues, defines CDC representation and other things. The Library is currently doing these things via the Division structure.
  • Email and virtual meetings have resulted in less-frequent/more efficient Division representation now than in the past. Paula’s change to monthly instead of twice-a-month AC meetings made Division representation half the job it used to be. Even so, it is more difficult now, in light of the shrinking number of positions, to find people willing to commit to being a Division representative. If the by-laws are changed on the matter of term limits, people who want to serve but can’t now, could do so.
  • Divisions are flexible at varying sizes, however once a Division has only 1 or 2 members, it ceases to function effectively. Not all Divisions are becoming smaller; Tech Services has grown significantly, which is different than what is happening with other units in the Library.
  • Sabbaticals create another Division coverage challenge, however it’s not necessary to stay within the division to find an alternative representative for sabbaticals.
  • Division meetings are deemed useful because one gets to catch up with things going on outside your own building. Division meetings are a kind of supportive, mentoring, trusted “home,” and helpful to some navigating the tenure process. (It was suggested the subgroup query untenured faculty about the role of Divisions as support for the tenure process.) The division structure also gives a positive cohesiveness to purchasing, resources, and knowledge about collection development. Things are shared at the Division meetings that wouldn’t be otherwise; there is something unique in the communication process.
  • Restructuring (ex: Reference) provides a reason to rethink Divisions. When a Division and a Library become the same, a merger with another related Division could be considered. One purpose of the division unit is to give a voice, which might not happen if a merger results in representation from a small division becoming subsumed by a larger Division or if we abandon divisions and work within a departmental framework only.
  • The need and role for Divisions has evolved and changed over time since they were created in ~1990. With the consolidation of services and more centralized functions, it’s important to keep the balance with critical and fluid research and educational things that are going on at the edge of what we do. Divisions are probably more in line with this than the centralized services. If we are going to change the Division structure, how would we insure that its voice is communicated, especially from those under-served.
  • There is an efficiency of response at the Division level that does not exist at other levels for issues that need to be resolved quickly. ESSL staffing issues were provided as an example. Nancy O’Brien and Lisa Romero solve staffing problems in a matter of hours.
  • If the Division structure is removed, people in similar subject areas will find other ways to get together on an informal basis. Separation of administrative and program-focused cross-disciplinary functions benefit from a connection to subject.
  • It was suggested that we gain input from the three virtual library librarians and also from the AULs to learn if Divisions are an asset to their work. Because not all Division members are faculty, an effort should be made to hear from all.
  1. 3.    Library IT updates: IT security awareness training; the upgrade of the G & H drives storage; and Unified communications. (Beth Sandore and Jason Strutz)

Upgrade of the G & H drives storage
A Dell technician will be on-site next Monday-Wednesday helping out with the new storage equipment installation and configuration. We anticipate having additional storage space by Monday afternoon, and the full migration will be complete by the end of June (it takes time for data to propagate). The technician will not “guarantee” no down time. However, we expect we will be able to make the transition with no down time. A note will be sent to LibNews regarding our progress and the relative risks before Thursday.

Jason explained the existing storage structure:

SAN: upgraded to 30TB from 23TB, will be good for about 6 months

Server OS

Database

Shared Files (G & H)

This is fast and very expensive and is being installed now and will be in place by Friday.

Mid storage: Digi/DCC+ other units putting things in here. Because this area is unexpectedly growing 10x faster than was planned for, it is a problem we need to solve by January. The problem exists because content generation is fully funded now, generating at rates intended, but sufficient storage hasn’t been allocated.

Archival

Medusa

HathiTrust (includes all Google)

We don’t’ update these files often, storing high-res files does not need to be fast, but it is expensive. Highly redundant on purpose, i on a Dell DX6000 system, has been delivered and going to be installed shortly.

Library IT is planning to do a census of data sets. We are not prepared to accommodate all this storage. Cloud-storage services exist, but the Library can’t rely upon this as the only source of storage. Library IT met with CITES as a potential storage source, however they are not quite ready to provide that.

Cost is a factor for storage with the SAN ($1500 per TB) and Medusa ($1000 per TB) and hopefully the Digi middle stuff will be closer to $500 per TB.

CITES cost is $25/TB/mo, ran for 8 months resulting in the Library’s G-drive problem, where things started to drop. Amazon is $10/GB/mo (which is too expensive to consider).

This information is being shared with AC to develop a fuller understanding of the complexity of the problem. Analogous to the Library’s purchase of materials without allocating cataloging resources, Library IT’s storage is not solely a financial issue (we have the resources for digitization), but a question of how we process material after it has been digitized and get it into the systems (some, but not sufficient financial resources exist). This is an instance of competing priorities; the SAN and Archive are competing against the middle (digitization). Presenting a deeper picture will help AC understand this is not a plug-n-play problem.

The Digi-middle layer issues are about work flow. There is a need for a logical idea of how long we need to store this huge amount of digital content before it is moved—some served and some not, and some catalogued. Illinois Harvest and some other things will eventually be moved. Hiring of two new preservation librarians will result in an increase in digital content.

Unified communications email, calendar and telephone migration:

 

  • Library staff and faculty should retire their Expressmail accounts, change their AD passwords, and install Office 2010, using the instructions on the Library IT Help Desk page: https://www-s.library.illinois.edu/staffonly/3steps.html
  • More specific updates on the UC migration will be posted on LIBNEWS as the Library receives them.  If you want to find out what is happening at the campus level, Library IT provides several links to the UC newsletter and other resources at the Help Desk web page, under the header “UC @ Illinois”: http://www.library.illinois.edu/it/helpdesk/Please email Peggy Steele or Jason Strutz with questions about Unified communications.

IT Security Awareness mandatory training sessions:

In late May the Library completed five IT security awareness training sessions that were mandated by the 2010 campus audit of the Library’s technology programs. The training was offered by the CITES Security and Privacy office, who worked in collaboration with the Library to put together the workshop content. At this point it looks like 80% of the 500 Library staff and faculty who were required to sit for the training found the time to complete a 90 minute session during the academic year. There were a number of suggestions for streamlining or improving the workshops during the course of the year, but Beth Woodard and Beth Sandore are interested in your feedback if you have specific suggestions. They intend to meet with CITES to determine the potential for them to develop online training and other less time-intensive training options. Another suggestion coming out of the workshops is that some type of training needs to be available for new staff and faculty on a revolving basis.

Please email Beth Sandore or Beth Woodard with questions about security.

  1. CIC’s Shared Print Archive – (Tom Teper)

    CIC has been discussing a shared print archive (SPA) that will encompass 85 million volumes. The Library probably does not need to hold 24 million journal volumes, and redundant copies the way they are held now. When a copy is held under a long-term agreement, the Library needs to decide what we will and won’t keep. The CIC Library Deans have agreed to support the cooperative 25-year storage of print copies. As participants, the Library will be free to withdraw material.

Indiana is the host site for Elsevier content (so they won’t have the same level of concentration in other areas, example: engineering journals). To determine contributions, each library has to determine what they have, what they don’t have and who will contribute. Wiley will be a more distributed model for contribution than Elsevier.
A question was posed about how this would work given the failure of the OCLC storage site. The structures are different. The Wiley/Blackwell, agreement was amongst the directors, (not the deans) and only for 5 years (then pulled after a short time). This agreement is for 25 years. Also, if a Library pulls out, content stays in the archive (the agreement is to keep content in for 25 years). What happens to content after 25 years has not been determined yet.

  1. 5.    Upgrade of the ORR: recommendation from CAPT.

This was not discussed due to time constraints. Tom and Beth will send an email update post meeting.

Adjourned 3:00pm

Notes: Chris Johns