Library Faculty Assembly
LFA 04/05-9 Approved: ____________________
April 7, 2005, 8:30 a.m.
Present: Karen Evans, Steve Hardin, Betsy Hine, Anthony Kaiser, David Kaunelis, Juliet
Kerico, Christopher Mehrens, Elizabeth Lorenzen
Guests: Harriet Hudson (University Senate Chair), Sally Baker, Kathy Gaul, Marsha Miller,
I. Call to order and approval of agenda
Chair Betsy Hine called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m.
II. Approval of minutes (March 3, 2005)
Changes already made:
· In IX. A. Library Faculty Affairs Committee (bottom of page 3): change “be” to “by” so that sentence reads: “They’re still hammering out the finer details by email; she’ll forward the draft to the Library Executive Committee.”
· Same section, near bottom of page 4, changed to read: “He added he’s sure the administration would welcome any it help it could get on this; some things are easily overlooked.”
· One sentence later, change “maters” to “matters” for the sentence to read: “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.”
· Remove extraneous “it” from second correction in the above list.
With these changes, the minutes were approved unanimously.
III. Recognition Awards previously part of LSG [none submitted]
IV. Chair’s announcements/report
A. Harriet Hudson, Chair of ISU Faculty Senate
B. Hine invited H. Hudson to speak. H. Hudson expressed appreciation for being invited to the meeting. She complimented the LFA on its activity; the minutes are clear and informative. She said she didn’t anything in particular to report about. She’ll be happy to answer questions. She made a few comments about what the
Senate is currently doing. She said the LFA receives good reports from its Senator, Rolland McGiverin. At the last Senate meeting, it passed handbook language related to policies for special purpose faculty, such as instructors and one-year part-time and full-time faculty. These revisions would give them faculty rank, not as voting members, but recognizing them as faculty. They give them greater status. The revisions also give departments much greater participation in the recruitment and hiring of these people, and regularize the academic processes at the department and provost level.
At the next Senate meeting, it will receive the feasibility report on the laptop/notebook initiative. It came out earlier this week and is being reviewed by the President and Provost. She added she thinks it’s an excellent report. The authors are not proposing leasing; they’re proposing purchasing. They’re also proposing pushing back implementation to 2007. We don’t have figures on how much it’ll cost then. Students can own their computers for less than they’d pay to lease it over time. The report will be on the web site soon. We’ll be notified, probably via globals, when it is. Everyone will be able to look at it. The Senate’s initial position on the initiative was that we supported the general concept as long as academic freedom and primary authority wasn’t infringed; nothing in the proposal contradicts that. People would not be mandated to use it.
The elections for new Senate officers are scheduled for this afternoon. H. Hudson said she will remain in office until August. The Executive Committee will be nominated.
The Academic Affairs Committee survey results will be out soon.
In view of the budget situation at the campus and state levels, there’ll be further reductions in appropriations for individual universities. She said it’s obvious to everyone that it’ll be years before we’re in a positive budget cycle. We’ve been looking for ways to have faculty governance to have more regular input into strategic budget planning. We’re frustrated with the reactive stance we have to take. We will create a committee to recommend specific ways to make this happen, and hope to have them in place next year.
H. Hudson said she’s noticed at the last few meetings there’s been a dearth of deans. Granted, we have lots of meetings already, but she wants to welcome the Dean of Libraries to the Senate meetings. M. McCallister responded that the previous Provost required the Deans to attend. The current Provost does not. And given how busy we all are… H. Hudson said Deans are very welcome. Raise your hand; you’ll be recognized. It’s an opportunity for deans to speak – they have knowledge and insight that can change the direction of the conversation; we don’t have a good way to know unless there’s that communication.
She invited questions and comments. M. McCallister brought up the issue of how our 12-month salaries are computed. New faculty librarians have salaries comparable with teaching faculty, but you have to consider we work 12 months. So we’re mostly 25-30% underpaid. We’re seen as faculty in some cases, and not faculty in other cases. She also discussed the library’s funding difficulties. We have 21 faculty members, plus 44 support staff members who are integral to our mission. We need to support them with training, desks, etc. We have to budget to support them, along with providing processing, postage, printing and other expenses. In contrast, the University recently instituted a technology fee to bring in more than a million dollars to OIT. Granted, OIT has expenses, but we have them too – we need a library fee. She’s been told we can’t assess another student fee. But yesterday another fee was proposed for distance education, with a lot of it going to the departments and part going to OIT. So, she said, it seems to her we’re not getting a fair share of the pie. There are some revenue possibilities: a library card for community users – maybe $25 per year to use our services. Another possibility is to start charging fines to faculty for overdue materials. That would bring in about $50,000 a year. Some of our collections are very popular – if we started charging a dollar per day when they’re overdue, we could receive some revenue and get the materials back sooner. So we’d like to move ahead with that. M. Miller asked where the library’s cut of the distance ed fee is. M. McCallister noted she wanted to extend her thanks to Michelle Boyd for bringing these figures together.
C. Mehrens said that when the new faculty portal was released, we discovered most library faculty don’t have faculty links. Most are treated as support staff. D. Kaunelis noted we’ve asked around, but nothing has happened. We lack the specific faculty links to items such as Academic Notes. It makes us wonder whether we’re listed as “employees” in other places – are we therefore missing emails, etc? M. Miller noted the library has been left off some lists. H. Hudson noted, “You guys really are neither fish nor fowl.” B. Hine said we often get left out of the loop in people’s thinking. M. McCallister said obviously, we couldn’t function well as nine-month employees; but she’s known places with nine-month employees who also received summer stipends. We do seem to get left out a lot. Computers are sexy, but people seem to have forgotten that a computer is a means to information. The library is the information.
H. Hudson said she would bring up these comments at her report at the Executive Committee, which the Provost attends. He’s heard them before. M. McCallister thanked her for listening anyway. H. Hudson said Senators are always asking how many times you have to say something before you’re heard.
B. Other remarks
B. Hine reminded everyone about Commencement attendance.
She also noted we need to have our spring faculty meeting and receive the LFA annual reports. She proposes we combine those meetings; she’ll contact the Dean about setting a date. She reminded committee chairs to get their minutes in.
V. 15-minute open discussion
VI. Remarks of the Dean of Library Services
M. McCallister expressed the hope
that everyone would come to “April in
VII. Report of the Faculty Senator
B. Hine noted Senator Rolland McGiverin is not here today; he sent out his report earlier. This next meeting will be his last as Senator. M. Miller will take over as Senator then. M. Miller added everyone should go to a Senate meeting once in awhile. H. Hudson remarked that the Board of Trustees meetings are also open; it’s good to attend sometimes. M. McCallister noted the latest Board of Trustees agenda is on the little table in the administrative office; you’re free to look at it. M. Miller suggested all faculty go to the Senate meeting next week for National Library Week.
VIII. Remarks from the Library Support Staff Representative
IX. Committee Reports
A. Library Administrative Affairs Committee
1. Library Calendar
A. Comer said that Barb Austin had sent her an email with several questions and comments about the calendar:
a. When do Summer I classes end? It appears the classes end Friday, July 7th.
b. Spring break – if we’re open only 8-5 Monday through Thursday, the extra line specifying that time for Friday is redundant. A. Comer noted we were open 8-7 this year.
c. We may want to consider being open on Commencement. M. McCallister noted there’s been a request to be open that whole day. The calendar says we’re closed.
d. The calendar says we’re open 6-midnight on Easter Sunday. A. Comer said she thinks we should treat it as a regular Sunday – the rest of the campus does. Besides, Easter in 2006 is on April 16, which is getting close to the end of the semester.
E. Lorenzen moved, and C. Mehrens seconded, accepting the calendar with the changes proposed. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Update on the USAPATRIOT Act Policy
B. Hine said the Committee decided it really couldn’t do much about that until the policy was sent to University Counsel. LAAC Chair J. Kerico said she has emailed counsel three times; she’s not heard back. Her last email to counsel indicated the library would start observing the policy informally if we didn’t hear back from her. She therefore moves that we approve the policy and start observing it informally until we hear back from University Counsel. D. Kaunelis seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Library Faculty Affairs Committee
1. Proposals for changes in the Constitution and Manual (attached)
LFAC Chair K. Evans said the Committee received no comments from the public release of the proposals.
D. Kaunelis moved, and C. Mehrens seconded, approval of the changes.
Discussion ensued. D. Kaunelis noted that some of these changes have already been made informally. The language on research leave and faculty participation on search committees needs to be changed. All references to the “Senior Assistant Librarian” rank need to be removed. The Promotion, Tenure and Leaves (PTL) Committee has now been merged with the Performance-Based Salary Adjustment Review Committee (PBSARC) to form the Personnel Committee. The references to “Public Services” and “Technical Services” need to be removed. Vague references need to be removed. We need to clarify that meetings are closed only when they are dealing with personnel issues. References to “teams” need to be removed.
B. Hine said we need a motion to table this item. C. Mehrens made, and E. Lorenzen seconded, that motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Hine said the LFA will vote on it next time.
2. PTOC document draft
B. Hine recommended tabling it. M. Miller said we apparently do not have the latest version. M. McCallister said the University Handbook states we have to have two committees at this level; we’ve been using only one. So it was a real mess when we sent things to Academic Affairs. M. Miller said that the reason we merged PTL and PBSARC into a personnel committee was to bring ours into line with everyone else’s. S. Baker noted the confusion may have begun when we redid our library administration, making Ron Martin the only associate dean. E. Lorenzen moved that we table the draft until the May meeting. J. Kerico seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Personnel Committee
E. Lorenzen reported the Committee made the deadline last week for getting the its part done for annual reviews and one promotion. A message will be forthcoming. She thinks we’re done for the year for personnel activities.
D. Senate/University Committee reports
M. Miller reported Student Affairs is looking at retention issues. The Committee has also been looking at the laptop initiative. Karen Schmid has come several times to discuss the national student survey. The Committee had five charges, two of which were unclear to us. We’ve had an extreme lack of student representation, an ongoing problem.
A. Comer reported that the Benefits Review Committee had its last meeting yesterday. Recommendations should go to the President in another week. A PowerPoint presentation on the matter is on the HR web site; go to http://www.indstate.edu/humres/staffben/presidents.html and click on March 30, 2005. Some recommendations: flexible spending, maybe a more formalized wellness program, adding oral contraceptives as something to be covered. The Committee is also recommending that 75% of tuition be paid for children and spouses of all employees. Employees taking classes may get a break on up to 18 credit hours per year. The Committee is also looking for a different way to treat retirees’ medical benefits. It’s recommending a cafeteria plan to permit more picking and choosing. There’s been discussion of donating sick time. She added that the Library was apparently only organization on campus that did a formal survey.
K. Gaul reported on the Faculty Economic Benefits Committee. For oral contraceptives, supporting the number of ISU female employees in the appropriate age range would cost us $100,000 /year. We discussed other items such as demand management using a 24-hour hotline. Some plans are stalled in the legislature.
B. Hine reported that Faculty Affairs discussed the turnitin software, among other things.
X. Old Business
XI. New Business
A. Related to Library Faculty issues
M. McCallister reported she has received the laptop initiative report; she will send it out to libusers.
We’re still awaiting word on the conclusion of our two remaining faculty searches.
B. Related to general library issues
The meeting adjourned at 9:49 a.m. Chair B. Hine told members to prepare for a longer meeting in May.
Steve Hardin, Secretary