Cunningham Memorial Library

Library Faculty Assembly


LFA 06/07-08                                                             Approved: 


Room 028


Present: Karen Evans, Susan Frey, Kathy Gaul, Steve Hardin, Betsy Hine, Juliet Kerico, Rolland McGiverin, Valentine Muyumba

Ex-Officio: Myrna McCallister, Alberta Comer, Marsha Miller

Guests: Anthony Kaiser, Elizabeth Wright


I.                 Call to Order and Approval of Agenda


Chair R. McGiverin called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. 


II.               Approval of Minutes (LFA 06/07-07, February 15, 2007)


B. Hine moved, and K. Evans seconded, approval of the minutes.  B. Hine noted that in Section IV, “NOTIS” had been misspelled.  The minutes were approved as corrected, 6-0-1. 


III.             Chair’s Announcements/Reports


R. McGiverin said the Dean has returned to him several more components of the constitution. We’re moving along well.  There are still one or two more parts he needs to give to her.  He then read a memo, reproduced here: 


In the University Handbook, under Faculty Duties and Responsibilities [III.7], is the following statement:


Members of the faculty of Indiana State University are expected to abide by established policies for the operation of the University and the conduct of its instructional programs, to participate in and contribute to the development and improvement of educational services within the scope of the mission of the University, to perform assigned duties to the best of their ability, and to be concerned about the educational welfare and achievement of students.



One can derive from this statement that library faculty are expected to participate in and contribute to the development and improvement of library services.


Page II-6 of the Faculty Constitution: 

Article VIII


Section 1. Representative Governance

The faculty of the colleges/library are guaranteed a representative form of governance in respect to the formulation and administration of internal policy….


From the Library’s Constitution:


Section 2. Primary Authority.


A. Subject to the limitations of Article I, Section 1, the Library Faculty has the authority to formulate and recommend policy governing:

1. Development of library services and resources.

2. Definition of service obligations to private or public agencies.

3. The facilitation of librarianship and research.

4. Faculty conduct and discipline.

5. Faculty appointment, retention, tenure, and promotion.

6. Freedom of expression and academic freedom.

7. The necessary and proper implementation of the foregoing.

B. The Library Faculty Assembly, in the areas of its primary authority, shall forward its recommendations to the Dean of Library Services.


Unfortunately, in the recent fast the library faculty governance has not been involved in or active in exercising its role in the development of library policy relating to library services and resources.  A few examples of this failure include:

·       Services in Teaching Materials, Microforms, and Media

·       Move of browsing periodicals

·       Move of current periodicals

·       Creation of numerous community engagement activities

·       Liaison assignments

·       Proposal to close Government Documents services



It is a general principle of the administration of the library that the dean should consult regularly with members of the Library Faculty Assembly (LFA) and its committees.  Consultation should be made in the early stages of formulation of the change.  To consult is to seek the opinion, judgment, and advice of the members of the LFA.  The final part of the consultation should include a clear statement of the proposal, a justification for the change, implication of the change on staff and resources, and an implementation time table.  The proposal then requires a recorded vote from the appropriate governance committee and the LFA.   It remains the prerogative of the dean to make determination contrary to this counsel, but if the dean does so, it is the dean’s duty to explain the reasons both to colleagues within the LFA and library faculty, together with the nature and extent of the disagreement.


This duty of consultation is not to be construed as implying that the dean is only an executant without power of initiative.  Perhaps the most important duty of a dean is to lead the way in setting policies and, as much as possible, in making tactical decisions.  The dean should have a program for the library and should aim at marshalling the support of the library for that program.  The emphasis upon consultation is designed not to shackle the dean but to enlist the active and effective participation of the staff in joint endeavors.




I see four levels of change.  The type of change will determine the way the proposal will be routed for approval. 


Level 1

Decisions that only affect one unit of the Library need not go through the approval processes.  This type of change has little of no effect on other library units, on the patron, or academic programs.  The unit making the change will need to communicate the change to the other units within the Library.  The proposal should contain a description of the change.  In addition, those proposing the change must seek and document consultation with other units. 


Level 2

The updating of documents will be received by the LFA from its committees.  The updates require the recorded vote from the committee and the updated document.


Level 3

Proposed changes that may affect other units in the Library are subject to review by all library units.  This type of change has little of no effect on the patron, or academic programs.  This type of Change will require approval from Library Administrative Affairs Committee and the Library Faculty Assembly.  The proposal should contain a description of the change and how it relates to all areas of the library, justification for the change, and a description of the duties of all the people involved.   In addition, those proposing the change must seek and document consultation with other units that may be significantly affected by or have clear interest in a proposal.   These proposals may be forwarded on to University Governance as a communication item.


Level 4

Any change that has a substantial impact on academic programs, collections, or patron services will require approval from the Library Administrative Affairs Committee, Library Faculty Assembly, and Curriculum Academic Affairs Committee of the University Senate.  The proposal should contain a description of the change and how it relates to all areas of the library, how it relates to academic programs, justification for the change, and a description of the duties of all the people involved.   In addition, those proposing the change must seek and document consultation with other units that may be significantly affected by or have clear interest in a proposal. These proposals will be forwarded on to University Governance and possibly on to the Board of Trustees.





A number of proposals will need to be reviewed by the Curriculum Academic Affairs Committee of the University Senate and possibly the ISU Board of Trustees.  Depending on the nature of the request, it may not be necessary to provide all of the information below. 


·       The Modification [For all Proposals]

Describe briefly the nature of the proposed change

·       Rational [For all Proposals]

·       Implications for other existing programs [For all Proposals]

o   How will the proposed change affect operations and services of other library units [For all Proposals]

o   How will the proposed change affect academic programs

o   What effect will the proposed change have on accreditation

o   What effect will the proposed change have on the ability of the Library to meet the University’s goals

·       Staffing implications

o   Are faculty and staff with expertise available now? If not, how will they be identified and recruited?

o   How ill this change affect the allocation of faculty and staff in the unit/Library [For all Proposals]

o   How will this change affect faculty work load?

·       Availability of Resources

o   Indicate space requirements and space likely to be released and how that may affect other activities.  [For all Proposals]

o   Indicate new one-time or continuing costs for materials, equipment, services, or personnel directly associated with the modification.  How will these costs be covered?  Indicate any cost savings to be generated with the change.  [For all Proposals]

o    Indicate any unique or additional resources that will be needed for the modification.  Are they already available?

·       Timetable for Implementation [For all Proposals]

o   Provide a detailed timetable for events that will occur as the proposed change is accomplished.

·       Other Information

o   Provide other information that may be helpful in the review process, as appropriate.



In the discussion that followed, R. McGiverin said he brought this up because the LFA has been lax on its part and needs to do a better job.  M. McCallister wanted to know the source of the document.  R. McGiverin said part of it came from the constitution and from other sources.  J. Kerico said it seems like a lot of work to do to do work.  R. McGiverin responded yes and no.  It’s similar to the work the Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC) does to get a new course proposal approved.  Some can be done quickly, some take a lot longer.  He said his ideas aren’t finalized; he’s just trying to document them; we need to follow them.  Part of it is communication.  Someone can make a change that he or she thinks affects only his or her own unit, but actually it affects others.  We should formalize communication so that any changes will work better.  We need everyone to understand what changes are proposed.  This procedure wouldn’t need to be followed for everything.  J. Kerico asked who would determine what the level is.  R. McGiverin said a shakedown would be needed.  J. Kerico responded that it seemed like a lot of work to get anything done.  R. McGiverin said that yes, it slows things down, but that’s the nature of getting input.  J. Kerico said there are services to patrons that aren’t being done.  E. Wright said it’s not the same as a course proposal.  M. Miller asked R. McGiverin if he was saying that more things need to come through library governance so that things are in the record, such as the LFA Minutes.  He responded that yes, it is the documentation of the faculty and the changes.  It is a communication route.  It’s also a way of enlisting participation.  Most proposals are accepted, but we don’t have a chance for everyone to work from the same page and anticipate the extent of any changes.  M. Miller asked whether he would turn it over to a committee.  R. McGivern said he would turn it over to LAAC or LFAC.  B. Hine said faculty governance isn’t set up to be obstructionist.  It may take longer, but everyone has a chance to contribute along the way.  When people come aboard at ISU, they know we’re a faculty governance organization.  M. Miller said, getting back to J. Kerico’s point, that there needs to be a way to get things expedited.  J. Kerico said she doesn’t think we’re very clear on how things are supposed to work.  R. McGiverin said his idea in writing this was to give the committee a starting place.  He doesn’t expect it to be fully accepted.  When we lost a number of our tenured faculty, we lost some of our governance expertise.  We need to correct that.  A. Comer said she didn’t think the clarity has anything to do with whether people are tenured or untenured.  What is your charge?  R. McGiverin said the charge will be more general, but he hasn’t developed the exact wording.  The charge will be to develop guidelines for the flow and process of proposals.  This statement is only what he as chair is thinking should be followed.  A. Comer said it sounded to her like he was trying to dictate what the Dean can do.  She said she thought LFA was advisory.  R. McGiverin noted the Dean can reject the LFA’s advice.  A. Comer said that R. McGiverin is saying the Dean has to give reasons.  He responded that that’s good business practice.  When we lost our institutional memory, we forgot how to do things.  By putting tings on paper, we don’t need to rely as much on institutional memory.  E. Wright asked about the constitution.  R. McGiverin said many of the procedures are not in the constitution.  E. Wright said he was going beyond that.  R. McGiverin said this is a good time to start hammering it out.  B. Hine suggested that said that since is the first time we’ve heard this, the document should go to the LEC for consideration, then refer it to LAAC or LFAC.  M. Miller said she see’s E. Wright’s point, but getting back to CAAC, they follow a CAPS manual.  Maybe we need something like that to outline our procedures more clearly.  R. McGiverin said the CAPS for course proposals is a lot of paper, but much of it is only checklists, a sentence or two; the major documentation that they’re required to supply is a syllabus.  A proposal may die before it gets to governance because people say we lack the resources to provide it.  J. Kerico said that the library’s situation is different, because we make changes to affect service to patrons.  She said she feels like she’s working two jobs to provide service to patrons while some people want to sit in a room and discuss policy.  E. Wright added she was sorry to say she’s never seen any LFA meeting result in anything swiftly.  Everything seems to be bogged down in petty procedures.  The course proposal analogy doesn’t work.  We’re providing services.  B. Hine said that not everything needs to go through a lengthy process.  E. Wright asked who decides.    B. Hine answered the LFA would.  K. Gaul said it depends on the need for transparency.  R. McGiverin said there are four levels; some changes need more consideration than others.  It’ll go as fast or slow as people want it to.  Anyone can slow things down.  It depends on who wants to cooperate.  B. Hine moved that the chair’s remarks of today be sent to the LFA Executive Committee to start the examination process and decide what action needs to take place.  The motion was approved 7-0-1.


IV.            Remarks of the Dean of Library Services


M. McCallister stated she returned the parts of the constitution R. McGiverin had sent her without approval. 


She asked everyone to please read their department head minutes about permanent visitors to the library: the Writing Center and a division of CIRT.  There are more details in those minutes.  They’ll be going to the area being vacated by cataloging and ILL.  We don’t know yet where ILL is going, but she’s asked E. Wright to consider options.


The Dean also said that CIRT came to visit us to say they think there are some areas of overlap.  They want to engage us with a series of meetings, discussing what they and we do in particular areas.  She’ll be sending out a message on this. 


Next, the Dean read from the library constitution, Article II, Section 3, B. 4., which says the Library Faculty has advisory authority on matters dealing with the development of physical facilities.  The Dean therefore has primary authority in this area.  It looks like the LFA is proposing changing things so that the dean does not have primary authority in this area.  The LFA can do what it wants, but she said she’s always been available to answer questions, discuss things.  Her door is always open.  She’d asked R. McGiverin to call a meeting on Documents.  He balked, she insisted, and he called the meeting.  But when we met and discussed things, he called for another meeting; she said this was the meeting.  This is the first faculty governance library at which she’s worked where librarianship is never mentioned at these meetings.  We should be having heated discussions about how we better serve our patrons.  Let the minutes show she’s asking the faculty to ask her questions.  B. Hine said efficiency starts in the committees and she admits we’re not as efficient as we should be.  But true shared governance will be more, not less, efficient, because things will be well thought out, wit input from people with experience.  R. McGiverin said he agreed with J. Kerico that we’re all too busy.  At same time, he thinks committees aren’t given high enough priority to get their work done.  E. Wright said that was the first she’d heard of that.  B. Hine said that in the bylaws, it says committees need to be formed within two weeks of elections; this academic year, it was late fall before they were formed.  M. Miller said in regarding Government Documents, in hindsight, this all could have been taken care of on a slightly straighter path: after the task force had been formed, and did its job; its report was presented to the Dean, and then it should have come to this body.  It came from the task force in October.  It could have gone to LAAC for review, and then be finally approved.  It was in that meeting that the plan appeared.  There was no piece of paper saying that “based on the task force, and input, I, the Dean,  will …”  We failed because there was no vote to formalize the task force report or LAAC input.  She apologized for what she may have failed to do, but that way everything could have been done.  The advisory authority of the body would have been used, everyone would have had input, the Dean would have been happy, and we could have moved ahead.  We can do a better job of this sort of thing in the future.  She said she doesn’t want things to get bogged down.  We need to work together to try to make it better.  R. McGiverin said he failed the institutional memory part.  But he said he was also upset that actions that would facilitate the process and move it ahead and make us look good haven’t been followed.  So we’re continually looking worse.  He said it was upset that it hasn’t been finalized.   He said he had asked LAAC in a note in December to provide a description of the change and a justification for it.  E. Wright, who chairs LAAC, responded that she directed him to the Dean.  R. McGiverin said he sent the dean an email.  M. McCallister said he did not.  R. McGiverin said he had it, but perhaps she didn’t understand what he was asking.  B. Hine said it needs to come from the committee.  E. Wright said R. McGiverin had been presented with the information in a memo, so he knew what he was considering. 


V.              Remarks of the Faculty Senators


M. Miller reported that we do have a new trustee, not a retired faculty member. At the last meeting, Ed Kinsley gave a “technology update.”  She said she noted that the library is lumped together as a conversation bullet with other campus resources.   E. Kinley also pointed out the catalog we all got and acknowledged they forgot to include a URL to use for registering. 


At Executive Committee on the 27th, there’d been a meeting the day before with people from auto industry, offering funding.  The library needs to get some of the money to support the new motor sports program..  It was reported that of 36 campus searches, three had failed.  Later, the Provost said there had been seven failed searches.  She brought up the problems with Digital Measures; others joined in.   There was discussion of possible mergers of several departments.  There was also a presentation from IBM about the “campus of the future.”  ISU is contracting to develop an infrastructure to move technology forward. 


At the latest Exec meeting, they revisited academic integrity, and the Provost noted the new college’s creation was approved.  The search committee for its dean will be convening soon.  The budget process is also ramping up. 


VI.            Remarks from Library Support Staff


None.  B. Hine noted this was at least the third LFA meeting at which no support staff representative was present.  She suggested something be done to address it. 


VII.          15-Minute Open Discussion


J. Kerico read a statement about the experiences of untenured library faculty members:


This statement is the result of conversations Elizabeth Wright and I have had regarding our shared experiences as untenured faculty here at ISU, and specifically within the library. By July 1st, we will have 5 new untenured faculty members among us, and it is our hope that their experiences here will not mirror ours. We have seen a number of untenured librarians leave, and believe that this has been caused by a climate of hostility and intimidation that is initiated and maintained by certain members the library senior faculty. We are both examples of faculty members who will leave this institution for this reason as well.


It can not be disputed that the work environment in this library is riddled with negativity, lack of consensus, and reluctance to change. We are particularly concerned with the way in which faculty status has been used to intimidate and bully people, which is why we are bringing this statement to the Library Faculty Assembly. We believe that this forum has and is being used by members of the senior faculty to wage political attacks upon library administration. This has been a consistent state of affairs that has led to no apparent positive result for any of the parties involved. Furthermore, untenured faculty members expressing support for the Dean’s vision both within these meetings and through their work have received hostility and harassment.    


Any cursory scan of the professional literature reflects that librarianship is and has been in a period of extreme change. This is an exciting time where positive and creative change is absolutely essential for the future of the profession. As a group of professionals, we have a number of significant issues to address and problems to solve in order to continue to provide services to our constituents and to convincingly communicate our necessity to the organization as a whole. We believe that the efforts of this body should better reflect a desire to move the profession forward, not serve as a forum for waging petty political battles with library administration. What inevitably results, is that valuable and hardworking untenured faculty and support staff get caught in the middle of a fight for power that serves to help none of our patrons and seems to exist simply for the sake of itself alone.


The purpose of this statement is to extend an invitation to bring apparent hostilities out into the open for discussion and possible resolution. We welcome your thoughts and responses.


Juliet Kerico

Elizabeth Wright


In the discussion that followed, A. Comer said, as an untenured faculty member, that she agreed with the statement. She said she likes everyone here, but she’s had more than one person tell her she needs to watch her step, or that something she was considering doing wouldn’t be looked at favorably by the Personnel Committee.  She said she doesn’t mind working long hours, but she does mind feeling like she’s being torn apart day after day.  B. Hine said it would be wrong for anyone to make those statements to her.  Any critical statement should be made in a mentoring way, not a threatening way.  It would be way out of line for anyone to say that.  M. Miller said she’s been on the Personnel Committee many times, and there’s never been a meeting in which its members considered anything other than the documentation.  Committee members have never punished allies of particular people.  J. Kerico said these sorts of things aren’t said out loud.  M. Miller said she was sorry J. Kerico feels that way.  She added that if someone’s acting inappropriately, it should be addressed.  She said she wanted to know if people think she’s said things against them.  She said she wasn’t aware of any plot.  There’ll always be grumbling here and there.  R. McGiverin said he’s served on Personnel along with S. Hardin, K. Gaul and V. Muyumba, and he’s not seen this sort of behavior.  We all have good and bad days, he said, but he added he doesn’t interact with J. Kerico any differently than anyone else in the building.  M. McCallister said it’s not an open Personnel Committee issue.  People don’t say “let’s give her a lukewarm evaluation because she’s allied with the dean.”  Also, she said, every untenured faculty member has come to her reporting feeling threatened.  Someone told her he/she wouldn’t get tenure if he/she did certain things.  Also, no one has ever come to her directly and complained.  Even K. Gaul, who filed a grievance, didn’t come to her directly.  M. McCallister said she saluted K. Gaul for voicing her feelings.  She also said that at the Senate Executive Committee meeting, Charles Hoffman read out the statement we said we didn’t have, and accused her of not following policies. 


M. McCallister noted she’s been here for four years.  She polled everyone at the table whether they were happier or sadder since she’s come.  She said she had to say that the library today is better for students, but not for faculty.  So she offered a rollback, returning Government Documents to its previous location, changing what the liaisons are supposed to do, and return to the team structure.  R. McGiverin said he wasn’t saying the decisions were good or bad; it’s just that the process wasn’t followed.  A. Comer asked whether any of the changes have been made if the LFA were voting on them.  B. Hine said there were problems with teams.  K. Gaul added that at least with teams, we knew what was going on.  She said she doesn’t have a current job description.  M. Miller said she wants to be sure the record is clear – she didn’t bring up the Government Documents thing at Senate independently; LFA asked her to prepare a statement, she did, she read it, Exec discussed it, Exec said something else needs to happen. 


M. McCallister asked if going back to the way things were in March of 2003 the way to make people happier.  She said she made all these changes because she thought it would be better, but we can go back.  M. Miller said she didn’t think anyone wants to go back to the way things were.  B. Hine said she thinks changes would have been made even if the Dean hadn’t made the changes she had.  But she thinks the information sharing was a valuable part of this.  A. Comer asked where do we go from here.  A. Kaiser suggested a “disinterested third party” could come in and consult.  And, if it’s an issue of communication, he offered to lead a group to consider how to efficiently communicate without weekly meetings.  M. Miller noted we’re having a more open conversation than we’ve had.  There will always be disagreements.  We don’t need to go back.  M. McCallister asked what she could do to get people to talk with her.  Anger feeds on itself.  People need to tell her when they’re upset.  M. Miller said she actually feels a letter better because we’ve had this conversation 


J. Kerico said that what sparked her and E. Wright’s desire to speak was the knowledge we’ll soon have five new faculty members.  E. Wright said it’s been awkward at candidate meetings with faculty.  B. Hine said she attended those meetings too, and she thinks we’re trying to be encouraging.  M. Miller said she’d been told by more than one person that the Dean always had plants in the meetings to report back to her on any negative things that were said.  No one wants to sabotage the searches.  E. Wright said it’s more subliminal.  M. McCallister said the issue of mentoring people came up, but she didn’t want someone from the negative senior faculty spreading the viewpoint that the Dean is mean.   E. Wright said many untenured faculty members feel it’s not worth it to try to get tenure here.  The perception is that people are happy/unhappy depending on what side they’re on.  S. Frey said she’s untenured and she doesn’t feel pulled by anyone.  S. Hardin said he’s never worked in a place where the boss didn’t have his/her detractors.  J. Kerico said that while people are complaining, there’s work to be done.  R. McGiverin said that whatever group you’re in, you feel threatened. 


A. Comer said she’s worked in a number of libraries, and while there were always complaints about the boss or coworkers, it was never as bad or divisive as it is here.  Where do we go from here?  B. Hine said she appreciated the honesty, and this discussion  is a good start.  M. McCallister said that when she’d been here a year and a half, she got into a discussion with an administrator at ISU who said that she didn’t support Special Collections here.  She asked everyone to please come to her if you have complaints.  B. Hine said maybe we should do some follow-up to the negativity videos.  She agreed we ought not to just let this drop.  A. Kaiser suggested calling in a third party who can create a safe environment in which differences can be aired.  B. Hine said it’s not conflict resolution, it’s openness resolution.  We’re in an academic setting; we need to feel free to disagree without anyone taking it personally.  S. Frey asked whether the problem is with the faculty or with the whole staff.  B. Hine said they can’t be separated, although E. Wright said there was an argument for focusing some on faculty. 


VIII.        Old Business


A.     Reorganization from LAAC


R. McGiverin said he had an email from E. Wright relating to reorganization issues.  B. Hine moved, and M. Miller seconded, accepting the recommendation of LAAC.  MM asked whether the Electronic Resources Librarian position reports to the Dean.  M. McCallister said yes, but it may not stay that way. 


B. Hine asked whether K. Gaul would remain the government documents librarian.  K. Gaul replied no, that she’d been told she’d be a specialist in documents, but that Sheila Gregg would be the contact person for the Federal Depository Libraries Program.  She added she considers it a problem because the federal regulations say the person should be a librarian.  M. McCallister said she’d like to amend that – K. Gaul will be the sign-off person on document issues when needed.  The arrangement may change when we have a new head of reference.  The FDLP doesn’t require a professional librarian; we’re within the FDLP guidelines.  She added she’s concerned with weeding; the library needs to free up more space, and needs to change its focus from paper to electronic. 


The Assembly voted 6-1-0 to merge the government documents desk with reference services.  The Assembly also voted 7-0-0 on the creation of the position of Electronic Resources Librarian and its corresponding unit.  Several comments were made about the necessity of the position’s being created, and there was a consensus that J. Kerico has done a good job in the position. 


IX.            New Business


A.    Travel budget


M. McCallister noted the library’s travel budget is about $12,500/year.  But last time she consulted with Michelle Boyd, we had actually spent $20,000.  In some areas, travel budgeting is done with a flat line.  She wants to explore what would happen if we move into some sort of system like that to gain some sort of control over it.  Some discussion followed.  S. Hardin recommended making sure the untenured faculty get a little more money, as we have in the past  R. McGiverin concurred, and said the current policy is probably in the policies folder.  M. Miller requested the administration provide figures on what sort of things are being attended.  The Dean responded Michelle is the only one who can do that; the information won’t be ready before May.  A. Comer recommend having LAAC look at it, and to look at the figures by the end of June.


B.    Humanities Librarian


Here is the position description:




University Libraries


Position Description


DATE: 2/28/07




DEPT.:  Electronic Resources Unit


POSITION TITLE:  Electronic Resources Librarian (draft)





The Electronic Resources Librarian assists with the design, delivery, and maintenance of a leading-edge information technology infrastructure in support of the University Library's mission.


The Electronic Resources Librarian coordinates the acquisition, implementation and maintenance of the library's electronic resources.  The position also is responsible for implementing and managing comprehensive content-linking/resolution service technologies at the article level, and for assisting in strategic planning and in evaluating and recommending services, products and projects. Provides instruction, user aids, and assistance in problem solving for library IT applications. This librarian works closely with the Heads of Systems, Acquisitions, Cataloging, and Circulation and Interlibrary Loan.



This position reports directly to the Dean





Required: The successful candidate will have knowledge of current and emerging library technologies, excellent planning and project management skills; superior organizational, analytical, troubleshooting and communication skills; a commitment to professional development; and an ability to work effectively in a collaborative environment as part of a team and with diverse groups, maintaining an environment of mutual respect.  Will have proven data management skills (databases, spreadsheets, office applications) and a demonstrated knowledge of how people use information and how its effective organization and appropriate content can facilitate scholarly research. The successful candidate will also exhibit flexibility, creativity, and initiative; have the ability to effectively communicate technical issues to colleagues, library patrons, and vendors, and have a demonstrated commitment to skills development for professional growth and position requirements. Master's degree in Library Science or Information Science from an ALA-accredited program.





Preferred: familiarity with ILLiad, EZProxy, internet technologies, computer networks, library automation systems, server management, HTML, MS Office and internet applications, OSI (Open Source Initiative), and OAI (Open Archives Metadata Harvesting Protocol). Strong evidence of interest and ability in applying innovative technologies to enhance library services. Experience in an academic library/information technology setting; experience in information technology administration/management. A customer service orientation with a focus on achieving practical results. 





·        Coordinates access to all types of electronic resources.

·        Assists with licensing and consortial agreements.

·        Monitors electronic resources budget (serials, databases, and e-books), including overseeing the set up of ledgers in the library’s online system, tracking problems with funds, comparisons between Voyager and BANNER, and balancing the ledger for each individual fiscal year.

·        Works with vendors to resolve access problems including all link resolver maintenance activities.

·        Collects usage data and analyzing statistics and management reports.

·        Provides internal training and information about electronic resources.

·        Coordinates vendor visits.

·        Works with Cataloging regarding access maintenance activities.

·        Works with Reference to coordinate user interface and instructional design activities.

·        Supervises Electronic Resources Associate.

·        Reviews or formulates unit policies, procedures, manuals, and forms.


R. McGiverin said this position will deal with art, theater and music.  People have asked whether this is a model we want to support.  Discussion followed about the expertise covered by the position.  There was also discussion about where to advertise, and how to emphasize the music part of the position.  B. Hine moved there be a stronger music component to this position, but the motion died for lack of a second.  R. McGiverin asked the search committee to consider this discussion.


C.    New member for LAAC


R. McGiverin nominated K. Evans to serve out the balance of Christopher Mehrens’ term (which ends in August) on Library Administrative Affairs.  The motion passed 7-0-0. 


X.              Committee Reports


A.    Library Administrative Affairs Committee


E. Wright reported a group to investigate fines has been formed.  The Committee is also working on reorganization and reviewing policy documents on the L: drive. 


B.    Library Faculty Affairs Committee


No report. 


C.    Personnel Committee


No report. 


D.    Search Committees


No report. 


E.     Strategic Planning Committee


No report. 


F.     Senate/University Committees


K. Gaul reported the Faculty Economic Benefits Committee met and discussed perceptions of what’s going on with benefits; the committee advocated openness.    


XI.            Adjournment


The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 a.m. 


Respectfully submitted,


Steve Hardin