November 11, 2019 Meeting of Executive Committee

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

November 11, 2019

1:30-3:30pm

428 Library

 

1. 1:30-2:30 pm – Discussion related to the effectiveness of our tenure support processes – Attendees: Merinda Hensley, Mary Laskowski, Susan Avery, Chris Prom, Heidi Imker
2. 2:30- 3:00 pm – AULs – Regular updates including building project.
3. 3:00 pm – Approve minutes – November 4
4. 3:05 pm – Question Time
5. 3:15 pm – Vacancy on the Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee
6. 3:20 pm – Top Hire

 

 

Parking Lot:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes

November 11, 2019

1:30-3:00pm

428 Library

 

Present: Dean Wilkin, chair, David Ward, vice-chair, Bill Maher, Mara Thacker, Jennifer Teper, Bill Mischo, Lynne Rudasill, Merinda Hensley, Chris Prom, Mary Laskowski, Tom Teper (by phone), Heidi Imker, and Susan Avery. Recording-Lynne Rudasill and Lucretia Williams

 

 

 

1. Discussion related to the effectiveness of our tenure support processes – (Attendees: Merinda Hensley, Mary Laskowski, Susan Avery, Chris Prom, Heidi Imker)

 

Discussions related to the tenure process in the Library as well as the concepts of mentoring vs. evaluation as currently done by peer review committees.  It was also pointed out that the campus does not challenge the “faculty-ness” of the University Library.  In addition, the processes used in the Library, including yearly peer review evaluations, are not prescribed nor are they universal in other colleges on campus although an annual review of some sort alleviates questions during the 3Y and final tenure reviews.

 

The residency program is up for review and individuals are exploring other approaches to preparing individuals for tenured positions in academic libraries.  Most other programs are diversity focused although some, like the IPRH fellows program have specifically targeted areas such as training in digital methods.

 

It was suggested that working groups be identified and charged to look at both issues – a Mentoring Plan Working Group and Pre-Tenure/Residency Positions Working Group.

 

2. AULs –

Tom Teper – Building Project – Bill Maher, Joanne Kaczmarek and Lynne Thomas will be involved in a call with JLK and drafting responses to questions from the firm.  There are two possible footprints, but in either, there should be ample room for the near future.  Final set of plans should be received before the end of the month then get turned over to the library consultation group and the plans will then be discussed at the next town hall

 

Next steps will be drawing up program statement and looking for an architectural engineering firm to move forward; these will include similar conversations to what we have done so far.  Tom articulated his thanks to Joanne Kaczmarek and Krista Gray for their work.

 

Collections – Tom shared some information from the Charleston Conference.  He engaged in some discussions related to Open Access publishing as well as other opportunities.  Currently, read and publish agreements are being explored, but we are waiting on some work from UIC before we can go forward.  This is most likely to occur with a microbiology society out of the United Kingdom that is eager to move ahead with the project.

 

Things are going well in acquisitions with some funds already spent out.  He is looking at other options to spend out through back file purchases or free-standing sources that might support Social Science and Humanities well.

 

 

Things are going well with shared print repository.  They had set a goal of 150,000 to maximize the committed space and Tom was happy to report we are getting close.  We will be ingesting a sizable number down the road and will need to id items other institutions.  We are currently up to 140,000 items and should be at 150,000 by the end of June.  It is working well because we want to make as much of our own material work and did not want to take in 250,000 from elsewhere.

 

At Oak Street they had to replace one battery and are now debating what will be fixed next.  There is a strong rationale to replace the Oak Street facility software.  It has not been updated for the better part of a decade.  It is a DOS-based system.

 

Tom is also in conversations with some of the other cultural heritage organizations on campus regarding the need for storage space for some of their materials.

 

Ordering Deadlines –

• February 14^th: ALL E-Resource Orders should have been received by Wendy by the close of business on Friday, February 14^th. The University’s procurement system operates largely outside of our control, meaning that successful procurement of items require as much time as possible. We are trying to be flexible by pushing this date back a month, but we cannot process anything received after this date.
• February 21^st: ALL International Orders should have been placed for items that are going to require physical shipping to the United States. This date is being added in part due to the Voyager/Alma migration and, in part, because we find that a significant portion of unexpended funds each year is from these types of orders. Moving this up will be beneficial to those of you ordering materials from abroad.  
• April 3^rd – Date of last orders. The only exception is for materials procurement covered by the approval plan.
• April 24^th – Date of last invoices. Any invoices received before April 24^th will be processed in FY20 if there is a valid order. Acquisitions and the Library Business Office cannot guarantee the FY20 processing of any invoices received after this date. Invoices received after this date may be held for processing off of the assigned funds in the next FY.

• May 8^th –Date of last approval orders. No exceptions. These orders take 3-5 business days to load completely as an order into Voyager. Acquisitions reserves the right to hold any order that will over expend an approval sub-allocation. Selections made on GOBI that cannot be funded by a sub-allocation will sit in GOBI selection folders until the new FY for approvals and will load against that next year sub-allocation.

Chris Prom – Reported that test versions of Alma and Primo are now available and there     are massive cleanup operations underway.  Testing will occur in the next several weeks and the project is pretty much on schedule with the deadlines set by ExLibris and CARLI.

He will provide EC with requests for IT support on December 3.

 

The repository program is undergoing some work.

 

He is on the search committee for the Senior Director for Advancement, and there are two more interviewees from off campus who have yet to visit and present.  The process, however, has provided some more ideas on how to improve our hiring processes.

 

He has received a couple of outstanding innovation proposals and he indicated two new faculty hires are in place.

 

Heidi Imker – RE: Potential Pretenure Track Program

 

There was further of discussion related to the development of visiting faculty positions or some other configuration that would help prepare people specifically for a tenure track position.  Our current residency program is coming to an end, and we are supposed to be evaluating its effectiveness and usefulness.  It certainly would not reflect poorly on us to establish a program.  The Dean and others indicated that it would be much more desirable to have a conversation about such things as “fit” at the end of a residency program rather than at 3Y in the tenure process.

 

It was reinforced that EC will charge a task force to investigate what others are doing and how we might approach the project.  Heidi will explore the status of the campus’ DRIVE Postdoc program and lessons learned, if possible.

 

Suggestions for membership on working groups earlier mentioned were discussed.  EC will create a charge and combined task force with reps from a group by led by Chris Prom with reps from FRC.

 

The Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL) was discussed briefly.  As was the update on Room 220.  In response to a question related to the removal of the two enclosed areas currently in the room, Heidi indicated that we should stay tuned to any changes.  The group is currently looking at vendors who might offer truly mobile, accessible and sound buffering options to replace these two areas.  They have developed a Stage III communication plan and are working through data and interview on actual staffing needs.

 

The OVCR has the MOU for the PURE (Experts) contract.  We asked for permanent funding transfers to the Library, a bump up in seats, .25 programmer support for the API and a match of the .25 FTE Library provided Graduate Assistance as well as coverage of ORCID membership.

 

3. Approve minutes – The minutes from November 4, 2019 were approved by David Ward and second by Jennifer Teper.

 

4. Question Time – John discussed the college visit by Provost Cangellaris and a couple of issues they had identified for clarification.

 

In response to a question about $35 million additional for capital funding on Altgeld and Illini Hall, as far as we know at this point the increase will not affect us.

 

5. Vacancy on the Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee – LCAP will be contacted to identify an individual to appoint.

 

TOP Hire – An individual has been identified for a TOP hire who is a person of distinction and will be an asset to the University.  There is very strong support from campus for this person and position and the hire will be budget-neutral for the Library as long as the individual works for the Library.  The EC voted unanimously to set up a screening committee to proceed with the hiring process for