September 23, 2019 Meeting of Executive Committee

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

September 23, 2019

1:30-3:00pm

428 Library

 

1. Approve minutes – September 9
2. Question Time
3. Membership term extensions for two people on the Residency Program Implementation Group
4. PRC Appointment
5. Position Request – Visiting Government Information Librarian *
6. AP Promotion Program Update
7. Final Review for Upcoming Calls – Innovation Funding * and Strategic Planning Grants*
8. Results of Discussions re: HR and Search Committee Chair Checklist

 

Parking Lot:

 

PRCs and mentoring in the tenure process include the co-chairs of PTAC and FRC, as well as Heidi Imker from the Tenured Faculty Meeting

Executive Committee

Minutes of Meeting on September 23, 2019

1:30-3:00 p.m. – 428 Library

 

Present: John P. Wilkin, Chair; David Ward, Vice-Chair; Paula Carns; William Maher; William Mischo;  Jennifer Teper; Mara Thacker; Lynne Thomas; Lynne Rudasill, Secretary (recording); Lucretia Williams, recording

1. Minutes

The minutes from September 9, 2019 were approved with changes noted.

2. Question Time

The Dean indicated we should mark our calendars for the Provost’s annual College Visit, November 12.  He will be in the Library from 3:00 until 5:00 with an open meeting from 4:00-4:45 p.m. Provost Cangellaris has asked to meet with the Dean and Associate Deans prior to the open session.

The AULs are preparing a call for suggestions on new positions, hope to have a draft to the Dean today or tomorrow, and should have that out to libnews by the end of the week.  There was a a question about the process since suggestions for new positions had been generated by the Divisions in the past, and EC members would like to remind the AULs that the EC had provided templates for position requests in the past.  The Dean indicated that the AULs were not requesting anything that formal, but just looking at a paragraph related to the need for each position in the first round.  The intention is to get a general idea of what might be needed in the future.

We will be collaborating with LAS on an Investment for Growth proposal to use Undergraduate Library space for collaborative tutoring efforts. David Ward has been working with LAS colleagues on this for several months, and the campus call for proposals went out last week.  The University Library is not allowed to participate in the Investment for Growth project unless we are working with another school or college since we do not contribute to the fund. We are partnering with the college of LAS to investigate a mutually-beneficial proposal.

The University Library has the relatively unique role of being a step in the approval of new programs to ensure that Library collections and services are adequate to support such a program. Aside from the new College of Medicine, nearly all new program proposals do not require additional resources. The Dean will be asked to approve a new doctoral program that will require modest new resources, and we have little precedent for addressing minor shortcomings. He will discuss this with the Provost later in the week.  EC members noted the history of the impact of these approvals upon the Library and encouraged very serious consideration of these requests when they occur. In the past, approved programs have occasionally resulted in a demand for more Library collections and resources with no additional funding.

The first meeting of the academic year of the Senate Committee on the Library is this Thursday. The co-chairs of the Library Consultation Working Group will update the Committee on the library building project.

A question was asked about the search for someone to fill the vacant leadership position in Advancement.  There will probably be news on the search soon.  This position will report to the Dean of Libraries and the Dean will ensure that it has the same resources available.

3. Term extensions were approved for members of the Residency Program Implementation Group.
4. A PRC Appointment for full professor was proposed. Lucretia will contact the faculty member about the new PRC members.
5. The position request for a Visiting Government Information Librarian was approved. EC members indicated the need to include wording related to international documents and European Union documents.  These will be added to the job description.
6. AP Promotion Program Update

The promotion group reported that a close review of the first year of the AP promotional path program revealed some key objectives that needed to be addressed.  These are listed below with the suggested approaches to improving the process:

1. Clarifying the role of the supervisor throughout the process.
2. For the purposes of the AP Promotion Program, we defined the supervisor as the person who writes the AP’s performance evaluation
3. If an AP interested in self-nominating recently changed supervisors or has multiple supervisors, they should reach out to the AP Promotion Peer Review Committee for guidance on how to address their specific circumstances
4. The supervisor’s input into the promotion process is via the annual evaluations and the letter of support that APs are strongly encouraged to get from them
5. To share info about the program with, and to solicit further input from supervisors of APs about we can help them provide guidance and support to their APs, we held an open forum for supervisors on Sept 13
6. The group strongly encouraged supervisors to talk with their APs about the program.
7. Improving notifications/communications during the process
8. Supervisors will receive an email notification to inform them if their AP(s) submit a self-nomination
9. After the promotion decisions are made, the head of HR will share decisions during an in-person meeting
10. Promotions will be announced in mid-August. This timeframe will be explicitly communicated to the AP & their supervisor at the time of the decision so they know when to expect it to be announced.
11. Improving the quality/variety of sample self-nominations and letters of support
12. Exemplar self-nominations and letters of support will be redacted and made available.
13. Ensuring buy-in to the process upfront & setting expectations
14. A ‘no change period’ for year 2 will be implemented beginning Sept 30.
15. Per the Dean, no changes after Sept 30 will be made to this year’s program unless the change is viewed as “uniformly advantageous to everyone,” similar to changes in Comm 9. This is so that APs and their supervisors do not perceive the program’s rules or process changing from what was communicated to them at the outset of the program.  Any suggested changes not deemed universally advantageous for everyone will be considered for the next year.

EC was in agreement with the proposed clarifications and changes and commended the group on their work this past year.  Considering this has never been done before, EC thought it went quite well.

7. Final Review for Upcoming Calls – Innovation Funding * and Strategic Planning Grants*

These were approved by the EC and faculty will be contacted within the week.

8. Results of Discussions re: HR and Search Committee Chair Checklist

The issue of the role of the Division meeting in the candidate interview process was discussed at the Faculty meeting with no really strong feelings on one side or the other.  The EC discussed the importance of flexibility in addressing the issue of research depending upon the classification or level of the position.  We want to emphasize the importance of an adequate research agenda for faculty positions during the interview process.  There was general consensus that we should be doing more than just walking candidates through the paperwork available in the FRC/PTAC part of the interview process.  The final suggestion was that a Division member meeting might be advantageous as a venue to talk about research, but it can be left to the decision of the search committee chair.

9. New Business

PRCs and mentoring in the tenure process was briefly discussed.  EC will meet with the co-chairs of PTAC and FRC, as well as Heidi Imker to discuss issues that were forwarded from the Tenured Faculty Meeting.  Another suggestion was made that there be a meeting of the FRC and PTAC to discuss any issues that have come up in recent years.

There was a brief discussion of current vacancies in ACS and the EC Has endorsed a request that funds for personnel.