Time and Location of Meeting
September 21, 20163:00 pm - 4:00 pm 126 iSchool
1. Call to Order
2. Standing Items:
2.1 Adoption of the agenda – John Wilkin
2.2 Approval of the Minutes of the April Faculty Meeting
2.3 Introductions – John Wilkin
2.4 Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)
2.5 Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Nancy O’Brien)
3. Discussion Topics
3.1 Task Force to Create Promotional Paths for APs (20 minutes – Beth Namachichivaya and MJ Han)
4. New Business
- John Wilkin called the meeting to order at 3pm.
2.1 The Agenda of the meeting was adopted as distributed.
2.2. Minutes. A motion by Tom Teper and seconded by Beth Sandore to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2016 Faculty meeting.
Sara Holder as Head, Research and Information Services. Sara came to us from McGill University in Montreal.
Sara Benson, Copyright Librarian from College of Law, UIUC.
Kathy Wei, Mortenson Center Visiting Scholar from Northeastern China Normal University.
David Morris, Classics & Research and Information Services Librarian comes to us from Notre Dame.
2.4 Report of the University Librarian.
Dean Wilkin first reported on the changes in the way the campus is handling the hiring plans. The new way will be more in line with the strategical priorities, and hiring with regards to strategical priority. In the past we submitted 1-3 hiring plans for approval.
We have been successful in getting most positions approved. There has not been an appropriate amount of autonomy given to colleges. Interim Provost Feser feels the same way. This new way would align the hiring plan process with the budget process (planning process), articulate priorities and hiring in support of strategic priorities. We will be able to fill positions during the year.
Secondly, John mentioned that we are in good shape in terms of the budget situation and we don’t have reductions for next year. Feser’s projection for what we needed to reduce in the University’s budget is something that he directed over two years. We don’t know what the state will provide if anything, but it is our best sense of what the state allocations will be. His sense is that we will have a flat budget next year. John commented on hourly budgets and said he is not asking to not support critical services, but where we can save.
Last, John mentioned his new role as the chair of Campus Budgeting Reform Steering Committee. He explained that doing this is to find a best or better model and revamp the budget system. They will then look at how to put these things in place. We don’t have good incentive structures aligned with schools and colleges and what they do. The system is fairly opaque. Things are broken and it’s time to fix them. They are looking to do something clearer with the right kinds of incentives.
2.5 Report of the Executive Committee.
Nancy O’Brien reported that EC has met nine times since the last faculty meeting, and at the beginning of the academic year, EC designated EC members for different offices. EC decided it is important to provide a framework for its role in the Library and shared governance at this initial meeting of the academic year. Nancy provided an overview of EC, AC, and shared governance. AC is operationally focused and EC is policy focused Nancy sited from the Library bylaws on EC and AC as well as the function of the two. Nancy also cited the Provost’s Communication No. 27, which can be found at http://provost.illinois.edu/communication/27/Communication_27_Shared_Governance_for_Academic_Units.pdf, and also Mike Grossman’s 2005 report on Shared Governance http://www.senate.illinois.edu/part.asp. Nancy mentioned the Senate as a good way to be involved. Senate members were called up. In response to the question of how to get involved, Nancy mentioned the Senate Committee on Committees do the nominations, and asked anyone interested in serving to let Nancy know. The call will go out in early spring. When answered question of if APs and students can serve also serve, Nancy said no, but mentioned that APs can serve on other committees in senate and students have their own section.
Nancy provided information about faculty meeting procedures and stated that topics for EC discussions can be sent to Vice Chair Nancy O’Brien or any EC member.
Lastly, Nancy provided EC meeting summaries. A number of calls for feedback on reports and committee charges were initiated. These included the Residency Program Working Group report; Marketing and Communications Strategy Working Group charge; ClimateQUAL Implementation Team draft; Humanities and interdisciplinary Scholars’ Collaboratory Strategy and Planning Group charge; AP Promotion framework; First Floor Central Service Point Planning Team charge; and, Library Grants policies. EC met with Cindy Ingold to discuss ClimateQ and next steps, including feedback from library forums.
Two Interim positions were posted (and filled) for the interim RBML head, and interim Funk ACES head. The hiring plan was discussed and submitted.
EC also took care of Library committee business, charged the Bylaws committee to address roles, rights, and responsibilities of specialized faculty and to add an Academic Professional to the Administrative Council. EC will also ask the Bylaws Committee chair to meet with EC to discuss guidelines for zero percent appointments in the Library. A small working group was charged to review emeritus Library faculty benefits and this will be reported at a future faculty meeting. An update from the Open Licensing Task Force was reviewed and returned with comments and a request to articulate a policy for further review. Committee and PRC member appointments were made. EC also reviewed Innovation Fund reports and requests.
With the AULs in attendance, EC discussed outcomes from the Retreat and next steps. These discussions are ongoing and will be reported in LON. Also discussed, the sabbatical request procedures with Beth Namachchivaya.
3. Discussion Topics
3.1 Task Force to Create Promotional Paths for APs.
John opened the discussion by calling for input. He provided that the library has about 80 faculty, 70 APs and APs in professional roles that are important and significant. This is to see how to improve in our organization to ensure we recognize and support those people. We embrace this notion of creating a promotional framework and have our budgetary resources to support APs.
Beth Namachchivaya and Tom Habing presented on the topic. The TF put together a framework for AP and building specifics focus on promotion. Beth introduced the TF membership, what the TF has done and the recommendations the TF has made. TF has reviewed AP procedures on campus, and peer institution. There is no existing promotional model to follow. In many cases, it is realized that we are working with a need to develop a framework dealing with many different kinds of professional skills. Beth talked about the key elements of the recommendation, and Tom added that this is not just to benefit individuals but also the entire library. The presentation discussed that the overarching theme is to provide a path for career advancement for APs in all permanent positions in the library, including eligibility, mentoring and guidance, promotion procedure overview, promotional ranks, the review and evaluation process; promotion award, and review criteria.
There were many questions from the audience. One issue is about the rank and titles. Mary Laskowski questioned if the participation is voluntary and if wherever one is in the ranking, it is not required to move forward. Beth confirmed that one will be ranked but no one is required to move beyond the rank they are in. Tom Habing added that this is part of the hiring process, to evaluate to see what rank one will fit in. The process starts with performance reviews and people need to articulate in a statement their additional skills and expertise. Another question from Qiang Jin is also about ranking, if the library needs to be in line with the campus AP path, as tenured/tenure track faculty levels are the same according to campus. Beth replied that the TF has been in touch with campus HR. Richard Stokes is member of campus’ Council of Academic Professionals (CAP). It is interested to see what we come up with because they aren’t there yet at this point. We have the freedom and flexibility to develop something internal. It is not similar to the faculty tenure process. AP feedback base promotion and career achievement framework on achievement is not like faculty based on librarianship, services, and research. Criteria for AP review is not tracked like faculty promotion and tenure process. Habing added that the 4 level ranks are close to what other peer institutes are doing.
As for AP titles, Greg Knott mentioned that of all models reviewed on campus, College of Engineering might do title changes. We have 60 titles and are more diverse. The TF decided that it is important to recognize skills and experience and then reward that fiscally. The internal framework is a bench mark for career paths and is the piece to say how it is going to work. There are things to work out, but most important is to look at skills and people working to increase those skills. Karen Hogenboom followed up with a question about salary increases; if it will be the same for each person at each level. Greg responded that within our jobs, there is still a market factor we need to look at building a data base to provide John, EC and others with information and also look at the market. It is not entirely possible to give the same number to every rank. Part is still yet to be determined. The TF stayed away from the budget end. There has to be a clear expectation. The Dean will make the final decision. Ayla reminded that we need to be careful to take into consideration pay difference between genders, races, etc. and look at market and maintain flexibility. Mary commented that equity and merit raises are the place to look at market. She would support a flat amount. John Wilkin replied that diversity of positons in AP ranks argues against a flat amount.
There were a few questions about the review process. Sheehan asked where did the five year per rank come from and that it might be disincentive for those who might come up and are older. Not enough flexibility for those who might accomplish more and be ready for next rank sooner. Beth agreed that this may or may not be the ideal number of years. Maybe fewer up front or more as one progresses, or the opposite. She welcomes more feedback on this. Susan Schnuer commented that there may be some slow times, and we may work with ambiguity for 3 or 4 years to work this out. But this framework is elegant, clear and straight forward. The format itself is solid and easy to understand. The fact that we are doing this during the time there is not a good budget situation, means the library administration is committed to this.
About the recommendation itself, the timeline of the recommendation was clarified. Jemma Ku asked if the final recommendation means it is approved. Beth provided that the TF will make final recommendations to the Dean and EC, and it will be the Dean’s decision to go forward. It will take a year to implement.
4. New Business
No new business.
Merinda Hensley – digital scholarship this Thurs involving UGL students in digital process – 12-1
Paula Carns – LLL reception at 3pm on Sep. 22.
Dan Tracy – next week deadline for research showcase proposals.
Clara Chu – thank everyone involved in inclusive IL and International Day of Peace. Mortenson Center is celebrating its 25th anniversary and the program info is out. The programs includes Marianna Tax Choldin, who will be participating in conversations on the global perspectives on censorship and a lecture by Ann Morgan on Oct. 14.
Sarah Christensen – inclusive IL –Library event at Krannert 4:30-9p.
Josh Harris – Media Preserves with U Archives – documentary on Tim Nugent – features over 80 shots of film and photos from Archives is on Sep 22 at 8pm on Big Ten Network
Mara Thacker – 10/7 International and Area Studies – willhost West African drum 4-5p
Nancy O’Brien – youth literature day – 24 authors doing presentations, readings, activities, Caldecott winner for this year.
Tom Teper – investiture for Bill Mischo, Friday at 3pm
–IAS workshops on international studies librarianship in Oct. 13 & 14.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm