Time and Location of Meeting
September 20, 20101:30 pm - 3:00 pm 428 Library
1) Paper shredders in dept. libraries (Walter)
2) Discussion of staff concerns with unit heads (Walter)
3) Oak Street Renovation Fee Project
4) Selection of AC Agenda Committee members
Scott Walter (Chair), Tina Chzastowski, Mary Laskowski, Lisa Romero, Beth Sandore, Scott Schwartz, Marek Sroka, Caroline Szylowicz, David Ward, Gil Witte, Greg Youngen
1. Paper shredders in department libraries (Walter):
Following query from Library Business Office, AC discussed whether or not departmental libraries should be able purchase shredders for documents containing confidential information. Several units within Main Library report using 230 shredder; units outside Main Library report using shredders available in host buildings. Discussion of what needs to be shredded (SSN, personnel, some budget, etc.), as well as concerns regarding adherence to records retention policies. Should shredders be made available at multiple units or could the Library implement central shredding and/or pickup? AC concluded that units requiring a shredder in the unit to address patron confidentiality concerns, etc., should be able to order through LBO. Schwartz will ask Bill Maher to send out a reminder note to LIBNEWS about what should and should not be shredded.
2. Discussion of staff concerns with unit heads (Walter):
Discussion of Walter’s earlier e-mail to AC regarding staff morale concerns raised in other meetings and whether a meeting with unit heads would be a productive means of addressing them. Witte discussed examples of unit-level concerns raised at LSSC and elsewhere. Sandore described some of the feedback received by Library IT following the decision to reduce Library Help Desk service hours following recent retirements. Laskowski noted that not all staff supervisors are unit heads. General discussion of examples where one unit’s staffing decisions may affect other units. AC concluded that, without a list of specific concerns, it would not be worthwhile to bring all unit heads together when only some have issues.
AC continued the discussion of concerns about prioritization and improved communication around the Library on issues related to staffing and budget. Further, since not all staff members are comfortable communicating concerns to their Unit Head, how do we engender an environment where they can ask questions? AC members noted that some units are performing tasks or following practices already given up by other units because of limited staffing. How do we make strategic choices about the allocation of resources and bring greater consistency to the question of priorities, processes, and practices? Ward noted that the EC-sponsored faculty retreat will focus on developing clearer strategies along these lines, with an outline coming soon.
3. Oak Street Renovation Fee Project (Walter):
Walter reminded AC members that the Provost has approved funds for renovation of currently unfinished space on the 3rd floor of Oak Street for use by non-public-service units currently housed in the Main Library. Walter asked Division Coordinators to ask division members to brainstorm potential uses for the to-be-available Oak Street space (currently used as a store room for surplus furniture) and to provide input back to him as we begin planning for the renovation. AC members asked about the size of the available space (2,700 square feet) and about parking (space is currently available in the lot).
4. Selection of AC Agenda Committee Members (Walter):
Szylowicz volunteered to serve as a one-person agenda committee.
5. Discussion of member hip on LIBNEWS, LIBSTAFF, and LIBFAC discussion lists (Sandore):
Sandore noted that there are regular questions about “Who is on LIBNEWS?” with the most recent questioning of membership coming after a staff change announced on LIBNEWS resulted in comments from individuals not currently employed by the Library. AC discussed the function of the LIBNEWS, LIBSTAFF, and LIBFAC lists, as well as current membership parameters, including the place on the lists for retired and emeriti staff and faculty, Graduate Assistants, etc. Questions were raised regarding the inclusion of Student Assistants, but Sandore felt this would increase, rather than decrease, the problems with list membership management. AC concluded that the preference for inclusive, unmoderated discussion lists argue for retaining the lists as they are. Individuals with concerns regarding volume of list messages or unwanted replies to posted messages may employ standard e-mail and list management tools, e.g., digest options and the “delete” button.
6. Discussion of accessibility concerns during Library-sponsored presentations (Walter):
Walter alerted AC to a concern raised in regard to a recent announcement of a public program in UGL, i.e., the Library should provide the option of an alternative format for public programs, e.g., captioned video content, sign-language interpretation. Mary Beth Allen received this concern from DRES, and will follow up with DRES regarding what campus expectations are for the provision of alternative formats for public programs. AC discussed the potential financial impact of needing to provide alternative formats for all public programs. Walter will report back to AC following receipt of additional information and guidelines regarding campus requirements and resources from DRES (via Allen).