Library Faculty Affairs                                              LFAC 06/07-###???

November 15, 2006





Attending: Karen Evans, Valentine Muyumba, Marsha Miller, Susan Frey

Absent: Rolland McGiverin, Administrative representative


1. Reported on TPAPR revision progress.


2. Discussion on PTOC document: what, if anything has actually gotten approved at this point?  M. Miller checked archives, all the way back to July 7, 2005 LFA minutes, Old Business, reprinted below:


A.    PTOC document


B. Hine noted we had a document from the Promotion and Tenure Oversight Committee; the procedures are changing slightly and we have to bring our document into line with the University promotion and tenure document. She added that PTOC will probably meet again in September.  We need to make our draft and send it to the committee; the Committee will send it back to us. 


M. Miller noted that much of what was there in earlier versions is still there; it’s just rearranged.  There are still some incomplete sentences and blank parts for things we didn’t know how to finish. 


B. Hine said this document addresses the fact that in some cases the Library doesn’t have departmental committees; in some cases the department is only one person. 


M. Miller said the differences between most academic departments and departments in libraries are enunciated in the document.  They’re obvious except to a couple of people in the University administration. 


B. Hine added that the differences may result in the document being sent back to us by PTOC.  We need to have discussions about that. 


The Assembly then went through the document:


1.     For Section III.A.1. Terminal Degree, there was discussion about “The master's degree from a program accredited by the American Library Association or its equivalent (e.g., Canadian Library Association) is the appropriate terminal professional degree for academic librarians.”  What does “equivalent” mean?  What is the terminal degree?  Do we need to specify an MLS or an MSLIS?  What about someone with a PhD in computer science?  On M. Miller’s suggestion, a decision was made to write a second paragraph in the section to cover the questions. 


2.     For III.A.2. Criteria for Library Faculty Ranks


a.      B. Hine noted the only real change is the deletion of the rank of “Senior Assistant Librarian.” 


b.     Under the area for Associate Librarian is an ALA model statement: “Promotion to this rank shall require evidence of substantial professional contributions to the library and to the institution as well as attainment of a high level in bibliographical activities, in research, or in other professional endeavors.”  B. Hine said the intention is to make this statement part of the document. 


3.     Under III.A.3. Full Tenure Granted at Time of Appointment, there was discussion on part b), “the Library Faculty must unanimously recommend appointment with tenure.”  After determining that the “unanimous” does not come from the University Handbook (see Handbook III-4), the Assembly recommended that part b) be eliminated. 

4.     Under III.A.7. Definitions, discussion ensued about the section on Research/creativity in Librarianship.  There was a recommendation that we include a line about “emerging and creative areas of librarianship.”  The rewritten paragraph will be sent out for comment. 


5.     Under III.A.8. The Link Between Tenure And Promotion, on a recommendation from C. Mehrens, the last sentence in the third paragraph will be changed to read: “However, the roles of research/scholarship and service should also be considered, in order to demonstrate a balanced approach to the advancement of the discipline.” 


6.     Under III.A.12. Indications Of Continuing Achievement, Assembly recommended the third proposed paragraph, beginning with “Service,” be eliminated because the verbiage below constitutes the definitions of service this paragraph was to make. 


7.     Under III.A.14. Review Materials, under the list of means in making the evaluation, there was discussion about the last item, “Consultation with Library faculty and support staff.”  Questions were raised about the appropriateness of consultation with support staff in this context. 


It is understood there will be further revisions to the PTOC document.  The document was tabled for this meeting.  Revisions will be made and put forth for comment.  It is hoped this process will be finished in time for the University committee to receive the library’s document in time for PTOC’s September meeting. 



Conclusion as of November 2006: NOTHING has been approved. Might want to invite Dean to discuss document as it is now, before we proceed.


3. Research Leave document: this was finished last year but apparently not sent to LFA.


4. Need to look at Library Faculty Manual revisions.