May 20, 2013 Meeting of Executive Committee

Time and Location of Meeting

May 20, 20139:00 am - 12:00 pm 428 Main Library

Agenda Details


1.                  9:00 – Harriett Green – EC Ballot
2.                 9:30-Beth Sandore Namachchivaya-Grant Application Process (How do we go about making decisions about who get to apply for a grant when more than one       person or group wants to apply for the same grant>)
3.                 10:30 – Sue Searing –Humanities Hub NSM
4.                 Approve minutes from May 6
5.                 Question Time 
6.                 Formalize the call for speakers (EC taking the place of Colloquium Committee)
7.                 eResearch Implementation Committee Draft Charge
8.                Retreat Feedback
9.                 Committee Assignments

Minutes Details


Paula Kaufman, chair; Chris Prom, vice-chair; Sarah Shreeves, secretary; Mary Laskowski; Nancy O’Brien, Carissa Phillips, Lynne Rudasill, John Wagstaff, David Ward; Visitors-Harriett Green, Beth Sandore Namachchivaya, Sue Searing; Recording Kim Matherly


  1. 9:00 – Harriett Green – EC BallotEC member terms have gotten off cycle. In the past we nominated and voted for 4 new members each year, with two year terms. At some point, we started nominating and voting for 3 members one year and five the next. In order to get back to the original voting of 4 members each year, which is in the Bylaws, EC decided to resolve it in next year’s election: When 5 seats next become open on EC, the person with the 5th-highest number of votes will have a 1-year term for 2014-2015.
  2. 9:30-Beth Sandore Namachchivaya-Grant Application Process (How do we go about making decisions about who get to apply for a grant when more than one person or group want to apply for the same program)In past Beth used an informal review panel to make these kinds of decisions. GSLIS has put in multiple proposals and we have put in multiple proposals. If there are more than 5, Beth convenes a review panel, if there are less than 5 and they aren’t competing, she tells them to go ahead.

    How do we allocate our institutional resources to support them? How do you identify and help support institutionally a group or individual who wants to move forward and how do we determine and encourage someone to go forward with an idea? We may need something more than review panels to vet ideas. Perhaps we could keep a list of people willing to review ideas at the development stage.

    How do we sort out multiple proposals for same program and how do we ensure the proposal includes all of the requests for and resources to make sure it can get done? What if we had a required checklist or a signature form that requires that all departments involved sign the form? Something similar to the cost-sharing agreement people sign.

    Beth, along with Kathie Veach, will develop a checklist for every PI to sign. If the grant is using resources from another unit, the head of that unit will also have to sign the form. Beth will send a draft back to EC to look at.

  3. 10:30 – Sue Searing – Humanities Hub NSMThe Executive Committee discussed and clarified its position regarding the final report of the Main Library Humanities Hub Planning Team.

    The team submitted its final report in December 2012. The Executive Committee asked the team to re-visit several issues, and the team submitted a revised report in April 2013. The Executive Committee received the revised report, discharged the team with thanks, and called via LIBNEWS for feedback on the revised report.

    The Executive Committee supports the development of the second floor of Main Library as a humanities “hub” and endorses the re-purposing of room 220 (currently the home of CAM) as a location for humanities services and materials. Although it will be 2-3 years before room 220 becomes available, the Executive Committee has endorsed two of the report’s short-term (1-2 year) recommendations.

    • Develop robust criteria for decision-making on moving weeded materials into/out of Main Stacks, or to Oak Street. In deciding which materials are to remain in Stacks across the full range of subjects, serious consideration should be given to creating a collection focused on the humanities and social sciences areas served by those units in the Main Library that rely on the Stacks as an extension of their core collections (or in the case of International and Area Studies, as the sole onsite collection of browsable circulating materials).
    • Weed materials in Classics and in room 200.

    The Executive Committee believes that these preparatory steps will position the Library to explore more extensive integration of humanities services and collections when second-floor space, particularly 220, becomes available.

  4. Approve minutes from May 6Approved as amended, with a motion by Nancy O’Brien, seconded by Mary Laskowski.
  5. Question TimePaula reported that the search for a History Librarian and Interim Head of HPNL was not successful. EC will revisit possible options.

    There was a discussion regarding making all past supplemental documents on the EC website password protected. It was determined that this would take a lot of time and there are not enough resources in IT at this time.

    A personnel issue was discussed.

    The Biss open access bill passed both the house and senate ( If signed by the governor, the Board of Trustees will appoint a committee that will recommend if and how the University should provide open access to research produced by faculty. These recommendations could be a mandate for faculty. We applaud and support open access but have to be careful about how this is recommended and implemented.

  6. PRC for a faculty memberA committee was suggested and Paula will ask them to serve.
  7. Formalize the call for speakers (EC taking the place of Colloquium Committee)Paula will send out the call for people to request funds for speakers.
  8. eResearch Implementation Committee Draft ChargeThe charge was accepted with a few suggestions.
  9. Retreat FeedbackThere were lots of wonderful suggestions through the brainstorming sessions.

    Beth Woodard had suggested different groups of people to look at the different areas. EC agreed this was a good idea. Each group should come up with a one paragraph synthesis and three-four recommendations to act on.

    Paula will look at Economic Development section and send a draft back to EC.

  10. Committee AssignmentsCommittee Assignments were suggested and Paula will ask individuals to serve.