Library Faculty Assembly


LFA 04-05-8                                                               Approved: 4/7/05

March 3, 2005, 8:30 a.m.

Room 028


Present: Karen Evans, Steve Hardin, Betsy Hine, Anthony Kaiser, David Kaunelis, Juliet

            Kerico, Chris Mehrens

Absent: Elizabeth Lorenzen

Ex-Officio: Myrna McCallister, Alberta Comer, Rolland McGiverin, Deb Taylor

Guests:  Joan Evans, Kathy Gaul



            I.     Call to order and approval of agenda


Chair B. Hine noted the Library Faculty Assembly meets at 8:30, and if people don’t take the job seriously we can’t do our job because of the lack of a quorum. 


          II.     Approval of minutes (February 3, 2005)


A.    Correction:  Under X. Old Business, C., Promotion/Tenure Document: should read “Still pending – under review by LFAC and Personnel Committee”

B.    Under Chair’s announcements: “Library has some generic caps and gowns”   - let Joan know if you plan to go to Commencement.  Faculty are “strongly encouraged” to attend Commencement at least once every four years. 


R. McGiverin moved, D. Kaunelis seconded, approval of minutes as amended. 


        III.     Recognition Awards previously part of LSG [none submitted]


M. McCallister recognized Paul Asay for his extended work fixing Voyager after the system was hacked.  “Without him, we’d be lost.”  B. Hine agreed that “we owe him a debt of gratitude” for fixing Voyager. 


       IV.     Chair’s announcements/report


B. Hine noted that in the faculty senate elections, only Marsha Miller got her petition in before the deadline.  She expressed the hope that everyone voted.  Next year’s LFA will have to determine about what we should do about having an alternate. 


She also noted that Senate and University committee volunteer forms have been sent out.  She encouraged everyone to volunteer.



She also said that in April, she will send out a memo about annual reports for all committees, which are due in May.


A question arose about the Library Faculty Senator: can the Senator be a voting member of LFA?  B. Hine found that the Senator has a speaking voice on the LFA.  But the Senator could simultaneously serve as a full LFA member. 


She also wanted to know where the LFA Committee minutes are.  She wants to know whether the committees are meeting.  It may have something to do with number of charges still pending, she said.   


         V.     15-minute open discussion


J. Kerico asked whether her term on the General Ed Council lasts for three years.  She noted she’s in her second year.  B. Hine looked it up and saw it was a three-year term, so J. Kerico will be on until 2006.  B. Hine added it’s good to have a library person on the Council.


       VI.     Remarks of the Dean of Library Services


Dean M. McCallister asked whether anyone read the advisory strategic plan from ITAC and make comments on it.  One provision is that we would establish collocation with IT, OIT, and ETS.  The Library is mentioned four times.  D. Kaunelis noted that ITAC didn’t write this plan; instead, things came to ITAC for comment. He added the plan was a much smaller document when he was on ITAC.


The Dean also asked that anyone who sees anything about the proposed laptop initiative should let her know about it.  There was some discussion about it in the Provost’s Advisory Council.  She said she also saw something in the Bloomington.  J. Kerico saw it on Channel 2.  D. Kaunelis reported seeing an article in the Tribune-Star.  The Dean said she saw nothing about it in the Chronicle.


     VII.     Report of the Faculty Senator


R. McGiverin noted he already sent out the report form the last Senate meeting.  The biggest news is handbook language for deans’ reviews.  The other big item involves the Executive Committee, which has been working on is a draft of a new performance-based compensation, expected to replace our present system.  If approved, it would be applied to all ISU employees.  It’s still in draft form.  The Executive Committee seemed rather positive about it.  Committee members are hoping the proposal won’t be quite as vexing as the old “pay for performance” system.  B. Hine queried whether the proposal will have input from college/library governance groups at some point?  R. McGiverin responded that they would have some input.  Both he and B. Hine noted the final meeting of the Senate for the year is in April. 


   VIII.     Remarks from the Library Support Staff Representative


D. Taylor voiced a concern about University vehicles parking in Lot 13 all the time; people coming after 8:00 a.m. can’t find a spot.  She said University vehicles have their own spots by Facilities Management, and she’s unsure why they have to keep parking around campus.  M. McCallister pointed out the vehicles could be being used for something – maybe a faculty member is using one for a week.  B. Hine noted that Geography, Geology and Anthropology vehicles routinely park in Lot 13 because it’s closest to their department.  The Dean added that Health & Human Performance vehicles often part in Lot 13 too.  She noted that officially, Lot 13 is not the Library’s lot.  D. Taylor responded that we’re all paying for a spot and those vehicles just sit there, forcing us to walk a distance to work.  The Dean noted that perhaps there may not be a lot there at all eventually. 


D. Taylor also noted some concern about the release of the Library Associate IV position in Circulation.  If people leave in the future, will their positions be eliminated?  M. McCallister said we were required to make a budget reduction scenario, and Administration didn’t want much of the cut to come from the collections budget; that leaves the personnel budget.  An open position is better to eliminate than a position which has someone in it.  But there’s no coordinated plan to get rid of them.  On the other hand, she said, we may be told to cut more a year from now. 


D. Taylor asked whether the plans for a new student activity center, which could take up Lot A and result in the removal of Lot 13, will go through.  Will the staff and faculty be allowed to use the facility for free?  The Dean responded that a vote will take place later this spring; it’s a student-run initiative.  If the vote is affirmative, construction would start shortly for completion in 2007, and faculty and staff could use the new facility for a monthly fee, like Le Club.  D. Taylor asked whether we would still have access to the free facilities in the Arena.  The Dean said that as far as she’s heard, that would still be the case. 


D. Taylor also said there’d been a rumor that Ginger Garvey and Dara Middleton could possibly be moved to OIT.  The Dean said that that is a rumor; there’s been no announcement to that effect. 


       IX.     Committee Reports


A.    Library Administrative Affairs Committee


Chair J. Kerico said the Committee was able to meet for the first time this semester a few days ago.  In the next few days members will probably produce a calendar for the LFA to review.  They’re still hammering out the finer details by email; she’ll forward the draft to the Library Executive Committee.


She also said C. Mehrens and K. Gaul are working on the Library Emergency Handbook, considering changes which must be made.  It will be on the agenda in April. 


She also talked about LAAC areas of responsibility.  The Committee had a discussion about the extent to which LAAC should look at certain policies and procedures, and what its jurisdiction is.  For example, the Committee wondered whether it should be looking at the policies on room use or unattended children.  Aren’t those administrative functions?  Maybe we should retire some of these older policies.  Should we really be looking at all the policies and procedures put forth by the administrative office?  B. Hine responded that the library constitution spells out the duties of LAAC.  In Section II of the by-laws, it says:


B. Duties

1. The purpose of this committee shall be to keep apprised of

    administrative policies and procedures and to fulfill the advisory

    functions of the Library Faculty on such matters as:

a. The organization and reorganization of administrative services.

b. Selection and removal of principal administrative officers having

    library-wide responsibilities as well as the creation or abolition of

    such offices.

c. Library budgets.

d. Library collection development and physical facilities.

e. The Library calendar.

f. Service to library users.

g. Public relations.

h. Library publications.

i. Policy statements.


B. Hine continued that the fact that we don’t set these policies doesn’t mean the LAAC shouldn’t review them.  J. Kerico asked about obsolete policies; B. Hine responded they just need to be reviewed periodically.  Obsolete are marked as “old.”  The Dean asked why we should mark them as “old” instead of just deleting them.  J. Kerico asked who marks them “old?”  R. McGiverin responded that control of the folder is the administrative office.  The Committee’s job is to take a reactive or proactive role in advising the administration.  He added he’s sure the administration would welcome any help it could get on this; some things are easily overlooked.  J. Kerico asked if there are other things LAAC should be doing that would be more beneficial.  Perhaps the Committee should be looking at the Library’s role regarding the Center for Teaching and Learning instead of spending time on things out of the control of LAAC and LFA.  B. Hine responded the LAAC in the past has been involved in making decisions on travel and PR; it concerns itself with matters of interest to the library as a whole.  The Committee may not need to spend a lot of time on them, but that’s part of its responsibility. 


B.    Library Faculty Affairs Committee


Chair K. Evans said the Committee has finished reviewing the manual.  Members will also start looking at content so we can put up the web site for LFAC and LFA. 


1.     Appointing replacement for John Lunceford


B. Hine noted we have had one volunteer, so we’re appointing Sally Baker to replace him.  The appointment needs confirmation from the LFA.  R. McGiverin moved confirmation; D. Kaunelis seconded.  The motion passed unanimously. 


C.    Personnel Committee


R. McGiverin reported the Committee had just met; it’s working on documents presented for annual reviews.  Members expect to be finished soon. 


      D.  Senate/University Committee reports


K. Gaul reported the Faculty Economic Benefits Committee met February 22nd and discussed the possibility that the health plan would change.  Eight plans are under consideration, but not all are primary.  You can see summaries of all eight plans at the state web site,  There would have to be a state law change for ISU to join the plan that covers state employees.  Four universities would be covered.  IU investigated the plan, and discovered it has a better health plan than the state does.  The State of Indiana has several different plans: three are HMOs, Anthem Traditional and Anthem Traditional 2.  There are 1400 persons signed up as enrollees in ISU plans.   The General Assembly has a bill pending to affect health insurance to university employees.  She said her understanding is that it would cost us more.  To find the bill, go to - follow the link to “Bills and Resolutions.” It’s SB 474, so enter “474” in the search box.    Anthem:  The site also has a list of more commonly used prescriptions and the ones they prefer off.  takes you to an Indiana State flag with clickable links for more information.  K. Gaul pointed out there’s no live person to talk to.  There’s an FAQ, and a link for emails.  But you can’t interact live with anyone. 


A. Comer said she serves on the Benefits Review Committee, which is looking at how to improve benefits without raising costs.  This proposal to have all the universities on the same system has thrown a wrench in the works.  State Senator Vi Simpson is really pushing it.  The idea is to lower costs, but it won’t.  Cost is more a matter of the number of people you have who are sick.  IU may put the brakes on the proposal.   Thanks to library faculty and staff comments, she was the only person who brought up anything.  The library may be the dominant voice. 


Faculty Affairs Committee: B. Hine said the committee is working on documents.  There will be training for people in the grievance pool. 


E.     Search Committee Reports


No more candidate visits for the Head of Circulation are anticipated.  The Committee has finished and made its recommendations. 


The Metadata Librarian search committee has brought in one candidate; the search process is continuing. 


The Reference/Instruction Librarian search committee will be bringing in candidates soon. 


The paperwork for hiring new librarians must be in the Academic Affairs office by April 1st. 


         X.     Old Business


B. Hine outlined the Committee charges that are still pending: 


01 - has gone to LAAC.

02 - is finished. 

03 - is a review of LFAC areas of responsibility in the faculty manual. 

04 – 05 were referred to LFAC; they were to review a draft of PTL guidelines as they were drafted approved in 2002 but never approved.  Personnel has the same charge. If we don’t have anything to LFA by the next meeting, we stand a good chance of not having anything approved this year. 

06 – the fines policy - has been approved by the Dean, and she said she’d wait and put it in with others.  M. McCallister said she thinks it will be better to go to the Trustees with the financial things in all one packet.  For fines, people would think better of us if we let student governance know before going to the Trustees. 

07 – needs to be entered into the directory. 

08 – review USAPATRIOT Act policy.  J. Kerico said her committee has not heard back from the University attorney. 

09 – Web page (K. Evans addressed this already).  The LAAC is to review policy documents in libgroups and procedures.  That’s where we are on pending charges. 


       XI.     New Business


A.    Related to Library Faculty issues


1.     University Leaves Oversight Committee


Valentine Muyumba’s name was sent to the Provost as a candidate to serve on that committee. 


2.     Promotion/Tenure Oversight Committee – a Library representative needs to be elected


There was only one volunteer: Sally Baker.  The representative needs to be voted on by the faculty.  B. Hine will send out ballots or schedule a meeting for voting. 


B.    Related to general library issues




The meeting adjourned at 9:27 a.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Steve Hardin, Secretary