September 27, 2021 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

AGENDA

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
September 27, 2021
3-4:30 pm
via Zoom

 

1. Call to Order
2. Standing Items

2.1   Adoption of the agenda
2.2   Approval of the minutes of the April 2021 Faculty Meeting
2.3   Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)
2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Mara Thacker)
2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)

3. Discussion Items

3.1 Research & Investigation Time Policy Updates and Next Steps (20 mins – Dan Tracy, Peg Burnette, and Collen Fallaw)

3.2 Promotion & Tenure Working Group (10 mins – Chris Prom)

4. Lightning Talks
5. New Business
6. Announcements
7. Adjournment

Minutes

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
September 27, 2021
3-4:30 pm
via Zoom

 

1. Call to Order – 3:03pm 69 participants
2. Standing Items

2.1   Adoption of the agenda

• Adopted as is.

2.2   Approval of the minutes of the April 2021 Faculty Meeting

• Approved with a motion by JJ Pionke and a second from Dan Tracy.

2.3   Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)

• John Wilkin introduced Victor Jones Jr, Directory of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility
• Emilee Mathews introduced Siobahn McKissic, Visiting Design & Materials Research Librarian & Archivist, Ricker Art & Architecture Library

2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Mara Thacker)

• EC has met 11 times since the last faculty meeting In April 2021
  • As of 8/23, membership updates:
    • Bill Maher and Mara Thacker are serving second terms
    • Joe Lenkart and Chris Wiley are serving their first terms
    • Jennifer Teper and David Ward have moved off of EC, and are thanked for their service.
  • EC as continued meeting with AULs and co-chairs of LSSC and LCAP once a month to discuss shared concerns
  • EC appointed committees in June and identified replacements for departed staff and faculty and for sabbatical coverage.
  • EC appointed paper preparers, faculty editors, PRC members, and selected internal and external referees for 5Y cases
  • Approved faculty position requests and charged search committees
    • This process is conducted in consultation with AULs, LSSC, and LCAP, with an expectation that period reviews of new positions as they come open
  • EC granted an extension of funding for an Innovation and Seed Fund project that had been delayed due to the pandemic, as well as put out a new call for proposals in July
  • Began addressing back log of 5-year unit head reviews
    • Two reviews have been completed, one is in process, and a fourth has a charged committee.
    • EC began reviewing the process to be in better compliance with Communication #24. This revised documentation will be used going forward, beginning with the fourth review now underway.
    • Additional unit head reviews are expected to be conducted in the upcoming months.
  • Special Task Force News
    • Task force on Inclusion in Governance, which has representation from faculty, APs, and staff with a goal of improving inclusion across employment classifications. Co-chairs are John Laskowski and Erik Chapman.
      • Everyone encouraged to provide feedback to this group.
    • DEIA Task Force
      • Endorsed a vision statement and sought feedback on the vision statement from LSSC and LCAP.
      • Reviewed the preliminary assessment report.
    • Outreach and Engagement Committee
      • Rubric and criteria for new grant program approved
    • Approved changes to scope for Organizational Development & Training Group
    • Discussed UGL Main Library Integration, including receiving reports from various stakeholders.
    • Discussions about strategies for AUL for User Services, including seeking feedback from LSSC, LCAP, AULs, and Directors (see further discussion below)
    • Approved a request to reinstate the outstanding faculty award under expectation that the award be given only in the event that there are strong nominations.
      • Criteria are also to be updated to allow untenured and newer faculty to be competitive
    • Discussed and approved Task Force on Research & Investigation Time Policy Report
    • Discussed academic program review, which library as previously not been part of.
      • Work expected to begin in January, with reviewers coming to campus in the spring. Further questions should be directed to Dean Wilkin.
    • Approved a charge for a new working group for Promotion & Tenure and suggested membership
    • Follow up questions on Academic Program Review
      • Sara Benson (SC & P) asks what is meant by a program review?
        • Info: https://provost.illinois.edu/assessment/academic-program-review/
        • Academic programs on campus receiver regular reviews, conducted through the Provost’s Office. Library has not been part of this process in the past, despite being an academic unit. Unified colleges may get reviews, like Labor & Employment Relations.
        • The process begins with a self-review, which is shared with external reviewers who collect data and share their feedback, which is incorporated in future budget planning.
        • Reviews are conducted on a five-year cycle. Helpful for understanding how well the organization is doing and where work could be strengthened.
      • What does it mean to review a library in a pandemic? Nothing normal about activities during that time.
      • Kirstin Johnson (MPAL) asks about whether the review will have to do different elements that are not clearly relevant to the library? And what criteria are used? Is the library an academic unit?
        • We are an academic program, like a college. Dean Wilkin confident that there is clear recognition that the library is different from other academic programs. There is a lot of latitude in how the review will be structured. Not focused on enrollment or income generation. External reviewers will be from library profession.
      • Steve Witt (IAS) : What is the role of units in the program review?
        • The review will not be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis.
      • Clara Chu (Mortenson): Do we have any past experience with program review? Are there documents we could review?
        • This would be the first for the library. Other units on campus have their own, tend to be very specific to their work.
      • Mara Thacker: EC minutes are shared by Lucretia after meetings on the EC website.
    • Follow up discussion on AUL position
      • Cindy Ingold (SSHEL) asks about discussion around AUL for services and what the status is of that work. Has there been a position proposed?
      • Lots has been discussed but not firm plans at this point.
      • Mara Thacker: Two models being considered:
        • Internal hires, probably 2 and backfilling positions that are vacated. Benefits are that job scope is huge, so splitting up the job makes it more manageable.
        • National search: benefits include perceptions of stability, more diverse leadership into the library, fresh perspective. Budget implications for a national search, difficult to recruit for.
      • Currently split in terms which approach has received support.
      • Sara Benson. (SC & P): Would national search be larger single position?
      • Emilee Mathews (Ricker): Why would it be difficult to recruit for?
        • There has been movement towards splitting positions in similar libraries, recognizing the difficulty of having a single position that has a huge scope.
        • Chris Prom: Within Big Ten/ARL Libraries, most are dividing the positions up with smaller portfolio. Small pool of individuals who would apply for the type of position.
      • A general call for feedback on feedback has already one out, requesting consultation with unit heads who would report to those positions.
      • Kirstin Johnson (MPAL): Splitting the position creates some stress in terms of figuring out who is the advocate for that unit. Implications of structure in either option. Dean Wilkin concurs with importance of this feedback.
      • Kyle Rimkus (Preservation): Are there plans to make AUL positions permanent? There had previously been 5-year appointments with possibility of renewal.
        • Outside appointment would not have 5-year option.
      • From the chat: Multiple attendees affirm that current directors taking on this role are doing great work.

2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)

• Dean Wilkin notes the value of this dynamic discussions in this meeting, with focus on report from EC and faculty issues.
• UL reports should be short, given that many announcements are shared library-wide hangouts.
  • This approach facilitates broader conversations, rather than making it seem as though information is shared only with faculty.
• Where we are, since the last faculty meeting:
  • Very happy with how services are being provided, ensuring high functioning campus and in-person experience. Transition has gone well, with recognition about fears of return under Delta variant.
  • Campus feedback about the return to on-site services has been good.
• Building project:
  • No new information, but pleased with the work from the Special Collections division and everyone working on the transition.
  • Thanks to Kathryn Risor-Heise’s (Advancement) work on fundraising
• Budget updates:
  • Hiring less stringent than past, but still limited.
  • Only 1% of the library budget is uncommitted. Any new budgetary commitments could require layoffs.
  • EC continues to review decisions about hiring with Budget Group
  • Making permanent commitments to budget reduces flexibility
  • Some positions will just not be funded, including temporary positions.
  • Not much clarity yet on budgets for upcoming year, but want to highlight that enrollment has increased, which is good because tuition is primary source of revenue.
  • Potential for strategic faculty hiring campaign from the system office.
    Reason to be optimistic, but no concrete details.

 

3. Discussion Items

 

3.1 Research & Investigation Time Policy Updates and Next Steps (20 mins – Dan Tracy, Peg Burnette, and Collen Fallaw)

 

• Background
  • Previous RT policy adopted in 2007, only addresses extended leave. Many people were not aware that policy existed.
  • Investigation time policy is more recent, but not clear when.
  • Long history of concern about unequal access to research time for untenured, belief that policies not shared across all units.
  • Task force on Research Support (Summer/Fall 2020) sought feedback and shared report.
  • LCAP shared report with recommendations on policies related to APs and CS professionals.
  • First step was to investigate research time and investigation time policy and make updates based on feedback.
• Task Force Charge and Timeline (text from presentation slides)
  • Inventory existing policies or other library documentation related to research time and investigation time;
  • Identify gaps in information needed but not represented in the data of the previous task force and gather further feedback from stakeholder groups to address those gaps;
  • Identify gaps in and revisions to existing policy based on the inventory, information gathered by the Task Force for Research Support, and further feedback gathered from stakeholder groups;
  • Recommend updated or new policy language to the Executive Committee for approval.
• Key updates
  • Include Civil Service Professionals in addition to Academic Professionals classification
  • Clarify that APs and CS-Ps are expected to have autonomy in determining professional development activities and how time is organized, with recognition of limits based on unit/library needs.
  • Added contextualizing information about the benefits of the policy to parallel the revision.
  • Initially had included detailed info on grievance process, but walked back this language after feedback about differences in reporting structures.
  • Shared out-of-scope feedback with EC for potential future exploration
• Next steps, from the final report, which includes rankings of future steps from critical to aspirational, as well as specific action items, required investments, time frames and assessment.
  • Recruitment and hiring
    • Enhancing recruitment
    • Enhance the interview process
    • Strengthen onboarding and hiring processes
    • Develop a Research Skills Self-Assessment and a Research Skills Development Plan tool
    • Implement Residency Program
  • Research support programming
    • Develop Jump Start to Research program
    • Improve demonstration and sharing of research activity
    • Create a Research Community of Practice (e.g. mentoring program, writing groups)
    • Enhance PRC support
  • Roles and personnel
    • Create a designated position for research support
  • Policy and infrastructure
    • Trace and disseminate research successes
    • Formalize AP research activity for promotion
    • Increase funding opportunities for researchers
    • Create a clearinghouse for research support information
  • Discussion:
    • Steve Witt (IAS) asks: This conversation assumes that there is clear expectation of how much time should be spent on librarianship (which is linked to the time allowed). Other departments protect research time by limiting course loads. What is comparable for librarianship load? What happens when library staff take on additional responsibilities.
      • Several people agree with this question in the chat.
      • Conclusion: needs more discussion in the future to establish more clarity on what are the workload expectations for service and librarianship as well.
      • Dan notes that there has been conversation about situations where people get fellowships or otherwise have something that seems analogous to a course release.
    • Sara Benson (SC&P) argues for prioritization of research support position since that person could manage the prioritization of the other ideas discussed here. Notes that this is an issue of DEIA, since we could be losing faculty who need that support.

 

3.2 Promotion & Tenure Working Group (10 mins – Chris Prom)

 

• Chris Prom Introduced a new process for the upcoming in response to campus revision of Communication 9.
  • Must revise our own internal processes to see how they might better align with the campus standards and make explicit underlying assumptions, including an update to the statement on librarianship.
  • Promotion & Tenure Working Group has been charged with first meeting last week. Conversations are expected to continue throughout the semester.
  • Dossier and other P & T processes in the library will be updated, with recommendations brought to EC, PTAC, FRC and culminating in discussion at faculty meetings.
  • Chris recommends reviewing the available resources around the changes to Communication 9.
  • First task will be an open-ended survey about ideas on questions and thoughts on the process.
• Courtney Becks (HPNL) how to get in touch with working group?
  • Contact any member or Chris Prom.
  • Share feedback on forthcoming survey.

 

4. Lightning Talks
5. New Business
6. Announcements

 

Clara Chu (Mortenson): Nov 8 event on 30^th anniversary of the Mortenson Center and distinguished lecture.

 

Nancy O’Brien (SSHEL): 12pm event sponsored by Library Friends, “Little Golden Books and Beyond” on history and purpose of children’s literature

7. Adjournment 4:23pm