June 24, 2019 Meeting of Executive Committee

Time and Location of Meeting

June 24, 2019

Agenda Details




June 24, 2019


428 Library




  1. Approve minutes – June 10
  2. Question Time
  3. Internal Reviewer
  4. AP Promotion Peer Review Advisory Committee

Minutes Details




June 24, 2019


428 Library


Present: John Wilkin, chair; David Ward, vice-chair; Mary Laskowski, secretary; Paula Carns, William Maher, Bill Mischo, Lynne Rudasill; Recording-Kim Matherly


  1. Approve minutes – June 10

Minutes were approved as amended with a motion by David Ward, seconded by Mary Laskowski.


  1. Question Time

John has no budget information, but expects to hear about the budget by the end of the week.


We will be changing how we report ARL statistics, in the future. Other institutions report salary and benefits in their total budget, but we have only reported salary. In the future, we will be reporting the money for benefits as part of our budget.


John will be attending a meeting of chief negotiators in Germany in the fall around publishing models. There will be an Open Access Tipping Point Workshop in DC in August to strategize.


Lynne Rudasill reported that the Provost’s office will be taking a close look at Communication 9 and we should expect changes.


Personnel issues were discussed.


John will be sending out a LON announcement regarding the Strategic Planning Process, and let the Library know the aim is to have something finalized in the fall. John would like EC and the AULs to finalize the plan.


  1. Internal Reviewer

EC made a recommendation.


  1. AP Promotion Peer Review Advisory Committee

The committee asked for EC’s recommendation for its top three critical suggestions for the committee to consider for next year’s program. EC suggested:

  • Involvement of unit head and/or supervisor from the beginning of the application process, so there are no surprises
  • Review criteria with current APs, possibly adjust job assignments
    • Consideration of mismatch between criteria and job responsibilities
    • Possibly add some parallel tracks of criteria to accommodate different position/unit needs
  • AULs and HR should both look at comments from prior annual evaluations
  • Look at ways to increase communication and visibility of the promotional path with APs and supervisors, also consider how it factors into personal annual reviews