Present: Gary Wiggins, Bob Noel, Mary Popp, Erika Dowell, Becky Cape, Nancy Boerner, Andrea Singer, Mary Strow, Jo McClamroch, Marion Frank-Wilson; Harriett Hemmasi, presiding.

Guests:

1. The Strategic Planning Committee’s first report is available at:
   http://www.iub-chancellor.indiana.edu/strategic_plan/final.shtml

   The Committee will now move on to the process of reviewing proposals. Chancellor Brehm also wants the Committee to develop a mechanism to evaluate and review the implementation of the strategic plan.

   Page 19 of the report lists all units which are eligible to submit proposals. This list was developed by the Committee and approved by the Chancellor. Medical Sciences, Nursing, and other non-Bloomington units are not included. They will only have access to money when they partner with larger academic units. Only 2 non-instructional units are included on the list: the Library and RUGS.

   We should be able to avoid problems that have occurred with previous strategic planning processes, particularly since with the current plan the money to be distributed will be an addition to base, whereas for the earlier processes it was all one-time-money.

   BLFC members raised several questions during the ensuing discussion:

   • When the strategic plan proposals are selected, it appears that they will give guidance on campus priorities that groups like the Collection Development Committee of the Libraries haven’t seen in the past. Does that seem to be a way in which the Libraries might seek partnerships?

     Chancellor Brehm hopes that, with the priorities set by the University, proposals of this nature will come forward. She hopes to encourage new partnerships which will advance the campus by making it more focused. This will be a gradual process which may take a decade.

   • Is the amount of money still the same as publicized earlier?

     Yes, it is the same, assuming that enrollment figures stay up. The enrollment target for this year is 6850. There will be a $1000 surcharge to tuitions for in-coming students which builds on the base, i.e., the tuition for incoming students is raised to $5500 this year, and will be $5500 plus the regular for their second year, etc.

     In case of a state budget cut, it is the Chancellor’s goal to absorb such a cut centrally at the campus level to prevent it from affecting academic units. The academic units would have to contribute only if the campus cannot completely absorb such a cut. The ‘new money’ will only be used if absolutely necessary.

     The Chancellor said that a rumor that there would only be 3 million dollars of new money available was not true. She specified that 3 million of cash have already been allocated, but nothing else has been touched.

   • Various proposals have been discussed among faculty members, including one library-related proposal that would offer statistical services – how broad should such proposals be?

     The Chancellor considers such proposals worthwhile, particularly if they are part of a larger partnership. She stressed that there is no limit on the number of proposals submitted to the Committee and encouraged the Library to actively seek partnerships.

   Next steps in the strategic planning process:

   • General priorities will have to be developed which will not necessarily focus only on academic programs, but also on other units which are crucial for the academic programs, as, for example, preserving the beauty of the campus. There is no funding yet for the general priorities – it may have to come out of the regular budget.
   • The campus mission statement, which is included in the Strategic Planning Committee’s report, will go to the Bloomington Faculty Council for discussion and review. Since an earlier version of a mission statement has never been approved, the Bloomington campus is currently without one. For librarians this is particularly important, since candidates in the promotion and tenure process are asked to address their activities in terms of the campus mission.

   Timeline:

   March 7, 2003: Deadline for proposals
   March 28, 2003: Ranking of proposals
   April 25, 2003: Consultations (between Chancellor, Deans, Board of Trustees, President, et al.) complete
   

   In case of unexpected needs, the allocations may not be publicized until the budget is known. The Chancellor concluded the discussion with an offer to the Library to visit again in the future to talk more about the strategic planning process. Harriet pointed out that there will be discussions in the Library about the Library’s strategy for proposals and about possible partnerships with other units.

    

2. Electronic balloting proposal

   Mary Strow and Jo Burgess in collaboration with UITS developed a proposal for an electronic voting system for BLFC’s annual elections. The costs for such a system would be $6500 plus a $1000 annual maintenance fee. The proposal will need further discussion. LIT has not commented on it yet, and many questions remain, e.g., could the maintenance fee be reduced if the Library were to host the system on the Library’s server? Could the system be used for other elections too? What exactly does it mean to host the system? Who would maintain the list of eligible voters?

   Several council members advised against adopting the system in the current budget climate, particularly if it has to be financed out of the Libraries’ budget.

    

3. Organizational plans

   Since Associate Dean Martha Brogan’s departure, several changes in the Library’s organizational structure have been implemented, and the Dean would like to receive input from library staff about these changes. She expects to have a process in place in the near future that will give her that feedback (e.g., a committee soliciting opinions/suggestions).

    

4. Update of Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

   The January 31st meeting of the P & T Review Committee was canceled because the committee’s work is taking longer than expected. Members of the P&T Review Committee are still in the process of interviewing individual librarians about the current P&T process. The Committee expects to have interviews completed over the course of February and will have its next meeting on February 26th.

    

5. Update on the Faculty Standards Committee (FSC) work

   Background:
   FSC was charged to propose a new way to rank librarians for annual reviews and salary distribution. There was concern that our peer review process did not mirror the supervisory process, particularly since supervisors and the Peer Review Committee have used 2 different matrixes last year (the Dean has agreed to the use of the Peer Review Committee’s matrix for supervisors this year, under the condition that FSC will find a solution to the problem).

   Proposal by FSC, in collaboration with Yolanda Cooper
   FSC proposes a 3-level ranking system:
   Level 1: does not meet expectations in performance; or in both professional development and service; this ranking would be cause for administrative action;
   Level 2: meets or exceeds expectations in performance; meets or exceeds expectations in either professional development or service; this is a meritorious ranking.
   Level 3: a small group of librarians who deserve special recognition in any category.

   Underlying assumption: the majority of librarians are excellent; the few who have had an outstanding year should be recognized; since the Peer Review Committee sees all annual reviews its members are in a position to identify Level 3 librarians and give feedback to the Dean who would then make the final decision.

   Discussion
   During the discussion of the proposal, BLFC members raised several questions and comments for consideration by the Faculty Standards Committee:
   

   • how many librarians should be in the Level 3 group? There was agreement that 25% might be too large a group to recognize truly outstanding achievements.
   • Distributions of rankings across library units were discussed; while there was agreement that there should be a fair share of rankings across the units, a quota system was rejected. One possibility might be one Level 3 per rank.
   • Should there be a limit of dollar amounts for the Level 3 ranking? While the budgetary Advisory Committee makes recommendations on salary distribution, the FSC could incorporate value statements in the document.
   • Currently, the Peer Review Committee is charged to give advice on salary settings. Should a second purpose statement be added to the peer review document, i.e., provide feedback from peers to the librarians?
   • Should we try to develop an annual review process that will be less time-consuming for all librarians?

   Recommendation from BLFC to FSC
   In principle, BLFC agrees with FSC on the proposal. The Council recommended to proceed with the document, taking into account the comments raised in the discussion. FSC was charged to develop a draft document which will be distributed to BLFC a week before the March 6th meeting, and discussed at that meeting. The final draft will then be discussed and voted on at a meeting of the Bloomington Library Faculty as soon as possible after spring break.

    

6. Bloomington Library Faculty Meeting on March 6 (tentative)

   The main purpose for this meeting is the discussion of the Faculty Standard Committee’s proposal for the ranking of librarians for annual reviews and salary distribution. Since the Faculty Standards Committee needs more time to finish the proposal, the BLF meeting will be postponed until shortly after spring break.

    

7. BFC Report

   Mary Popp reported that Fred Cate, the chair of the Strategic Planning Committee came to talk to the Council on January 21. He noted the importance of five areas of academic endeavor: Liberal Arts and the interdisciplinary programs related to them, the Arts, Life Sciences, Information Technology and Applied Sciences, and International programs. He stressed that there is a major focus on the awards process for Commitment to Excellence Grants.

   Another point of discussion at BFC was the PeopleSoft system, and how it relates to the academic priorities (e.g., grade indexing, etc.) of the Bloomington campus. Work continues here.

   A document about policies and procedures for reappointing tenure-probationary faculty was discussed and sent back to the committee. The document, which would have created the expectation that, if a faculty member had survived the first 3 year probationary period, he or she could expect to have the following 3 years to develop candidacy for tenure without the specter of an annual reappointment. It was considered too vague and raised considerable concerns from the Dean of the Faculties. Mary Popp will report to BLFC once a new version of the document comes out.

   An ad hoc committee on parking will be appointed from within the membership of the Bloomington Faculty Council. The group will provide feedback about parking needs of students, faculty, and staff.

    

8. Conversations to be held in conjunction with the Senior Managers Group meetings

   The Dean has scheduled a series of conversations to explore “changes taking place in scholarly communication and in the academy itself from an ever increasing use of information technology in research, teaching, and learning”. The conversations will be scheduled during times already scheduled for the next three Senior Management Group meetings:
   February 11, March, and April 8 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
   Harriett expressed the hope that these conversations will be well attended and will be an opportunity for us to review what we do, how we do it, and how change occurs.

    

9. Other Dean’s Reports
   1. Construction up-date.
      Work on Information Commons has begun; anticipated date of completion: July 2003. 1st parking bay on west side of parking lot has been removed.
      The Teaching and Learning Technology Center (TLTC) has opened on the 3rd floor of the Undergraduate side. It has had an open house on January 27th and is fully operational now.
      The Copy Center has been relocated to the former card catalog area on the research side.
      
   2. Calendar of meetings.
      SMG – see above for schedule of conversations
      Council of Head Librarians, February 21, 2003; will discuss system-wide endeavors (part. electronic resources).
      Comment on budget hearing.
      The Library submitted requests for collections and staffing (part. for ALF). We will have to pay an increase in benefit costs of ca. 15-20% across campus.
      Recruitment Report.
      The search for a librarian for English and American Literature has been completed, and an offer has been made.
      The search for Head of Preservation is beginning (Chair: Cecile Jagodzinski)
      The position of Analyst for LOCKSS, a grant-funded professional staff position, has been filled;
      One bi-weekly ALF position (cataloging support) is open.
      

Meeting adjourned 4:55 pm
Minutes taken by Marion Frank-Wilson

URL:http://www.indiana.edu/~libweb/index.html
Comments: libweb@indiana.edu
Copyright 2000, The Trustees of Indiana University