Specialized Faculty Forum
Notes
Thursday, October 7, 2015, 10-11:30 AM ACES Heritage Room
Opening Remarks - Dean Wilkin
Everyone knows where I stand on this, but important to reiterate a few key points.
 The outcome is important, but just as important is the dialogue. We will move the organization
forward one way or the other (e.g., adopting specialized faculty or supporting a promotion
system for APs). Importance of meaningful, collegial engagement by all parties on the issue, and
want to express appreciation for that. I believe we should, and that if we do not we will not be
providing sufficient support for individuals who are in the profession (moving to other
institutions, for example). Because of the role of faculty governance, the sentiment of our
faculty on this issue, however, is critically important to me. Despite the fact that I do think we
should...I’m comfortable with going with the will of the organization.
 The changing nature of the workforce required for 21st century libraries. We're hiring few if any
clerks, and having a growing need to hire positions require specialized knowledge, skills and
academic training. While we no longer need to any hiring hire in certain civil service
classifications, we have an increasingly diverse set of needs in the academic staff category. It’s
inevitable that we’ll hire more librarians and archivists who are not tenure system, not to
replace the tenure system, but to make it possible for us to conduct our work.
 I am not advocating for replacing tenure system faculty with specialized faculty. Some will worry
that our adoption of specialized faculty will create administrative pressures to post new
positions as specialized faculty rather than tenure system faculty. Of course there will be
pressure to use specialized faculty instead of tenure track faculty. That pressure, however, is not
new and is no different than the pressure we now face to use APs instead of tenure system
faculty. The burden will always be on us--on me and on our faculty leadership--to make the case
that a given position is a tenure system faculty position: this is our greatest challenge.
Strategically, it won’t do us any good to eliminate good and meaningful classifications for hiring
competent people to conduct the work of our library.
 Bylaws. Must we change our bylaws? Talked with Swanlund about this. Campus is *not*
mandating bylaws changes, but does strongly encourage units deal with this. While there is
absolutely NO requirement that the bylaws be adjusted,their feeling is that they really ought to
be. Regardless of what we do in terms of clinical faculty, it’s already an issue for us with visiting
and occasional adjunct appointments, and it could crop up suddenly with unusual
circumstances, for example, another unit funding a spousal position in the Library that comes
along with special constraints. In short, although no requirements, better to deal with it."
 Let’s keep in mind the value and problem of working within a formalized system like that
outlined in Provost Communication #25 and #26.
o Value? Clear framework and campus support (e.g., funding for promotions, which won’t
come if we work outside of that system; probably other formalities as well).
o Problem? Not ours to define. Requirements like degrees will not be optional for us. We
cannot simply redefine an existing person in an existing position as Clinical Faculty
unless we’re fully consistent with the guidelines. There are clear definitions in the
Provost’s Communications, we would need to conform to them, we would not have the
latitude to make positons around degrees and define things in a different way.
We owe our colleagues in “information professions” (many of them now in the AP ranks) our respect
and support. Recognizing and rewarding the work our Academic Professionals perform is important,
regardless of the type of AP, but for those library and archives professionals in clearly defined library
and archives professions, we must provide a framework that recognizes their advancement and rewards
them for professional development. These individuals are active in the profession and if they were
employed at our peer institutions would have clear paths for promotion. Indeed, those paths would
often be recognizable across other peer institutions (Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarian, etc.). The
specialized faculty framework is clearly intended to support this kind of advancement and brings with it
recognition and support on campus. An ad hoc system developed by the Library will never have the
credibility and support that a formally recognized University of Illinois system will have.
It is important that our faculty governance process engages with these questions. The decision
may ultimately be an administrative one, and it is important that I speak with a clear voice to all of you
(and thus this LON column devoted to my opinion). Nonetheless, the Library must embark on this with
appropriate conversation and, ultimately, with votes by the Library faculty on elements of
implementation (e.g., bylaws) and even whether we move forward with this. I have benefited from the
robust discussions that have already taken place and look forward to many more.
July Forum Recap --JoAnn Jacoby, Discussion Leader
Today, we pick up where we left off at the last forum in July, which in turn built on discussions at
faculty meetings. In July, some of what we did was work on documents, with the table or the whole
group suggesting ways to clarify the distinctions document and the “straw poll”--now being referred to
as a survey--that will go out late this month. These documents have been revised by the taskforce and
reviewed by EC and we’ll circle back to them today. Notes from the July forum are posted on
Specialized Faculty Task Force website. These include the notes from the table discussions as well as
from the whole group discussion.
Today’s agenda includes:
A review of definitions a simplified version of the distinction in expectations and responsibilities
document. This has been reorganized as a matrix as per a suggestion as the last forum, led by Tom
Habing
A summary of the feedback we got on risks/benefits during and after the July forum and an opportunity
to amend and respond to the risk /benefits summary.
An analysis of current AP position in the Library that provides a sense of the range of AP positions and
the type of work that APs are currently doing in the Library, led by Jen Yu
Mary Laskowski is sick, so JoAnn will share the current draft of the survey that will go out to all faculty
and APs later this month. We’ll have the opportunity to work together to clarify the language of the poll
today.
We’ll close with a wrap-up discussion and question answers led by Dean Wilkin
Definitions and Distinctions Matrix -- Tom Habing, Discussion Leader
You have two handouts (addenda: an updated version incorporating change suggested in the discussion
summarized below have been posted the Specilaized Faculty website):
Definitions –This was drafted to answer some of the questions that came up at the forum, drawing on
Academic Human Resources guidelines and Provost’s Communications pertaining to APs and faculty.
Distinctions Matrix - The Taskforce incorporated suggestions from the July Forum and worked with EC to
craft the final document. Builds on the EC Distinctions in Expectations and Responsibilities document –
between tenured, AP, classified staff
Discussion:
 specialized faculty primary focus on teaching(librarianship) minimum 50% is clearly spelled out
in clearly in Communication 25
 tenure system faulty – should help set campus policy
 Specialized experiences is experience that has equipped the applicant with the particular
knowledge, skills.
 Research agenda – research agenda – should be MUST
 AP – 0-10%x, supposed to be specified in contract and position description.
 Research vs. investigation –what makes something an investigation and what makes something
research? There is a qualitative difference, not just % time
 APs investigation time for professional development
 investigation time more appropriate for AP, what they are seeking out is needs driven to solve a
different problem.
 Do we need to note thedistinction between other faculty on campus and us- 9 month and 12
month?
 we have some 9 month faculty
 opportunity for sabbatical, will clinical faculty have the opportunity, AP extended time for
investigation time.
 Research 30% weight for FRC only. No, the percentages are listed on the cover sheet that goes
to campus P&T.
 No standard promotional path, this is something we know we need to develop, those who
remain in AP lines, we will find a way to a promotional path
 Other units do have promotional paths for certain APs.
 Clinical SHOULD be asked to provide leadership and strategic direction instead of MAY.
 Are APs unionized?
 There are efforts to unionize non—tenure faculty positions.
 Specialized faculty are unionized
 Visiting AP are unionized. Adopt clinical faculty they will be unionized
 This should be added as an additional line in employment rules.
 Can the matrix speciafy which things at the discretion of the unit, or individual, etc?
Risks and Benefits – JoAnn Jacoby, Discussion Leader
The taskforce summarized all the feedback collected on the risks and benefits of using specialized
faculty during the table discussions in July as well as from the individual feedback from people who
weren’t able to attend. JoAnn ran through the summary for the risks/benefits from the table
discussions at July forum and the asked the attendees to add notes/thoughts/perspectives to the list:
•
Add anything that you think is missing
•
Agree/disagree/comment
Academic Professional Workforce – Jen Yu, Discussion Leader
Jen went through the AP at a Glance handout (also linked on website) – some job descriptions contain
more than one of these themes.
Discussion:
 Analysis of positon description, not individuals in positon based on risk etc. Are there people
that are going to be left behind? How the individual in the positons map to that situation. If we
are trying to think about addressing what is the human aspect of this transition, this is
something we should be cognizant of from the get go.
 For classifying a positon, job description a good place to start.
 Clinical faculty must have a masters – if an AP description lists the degree as preferred would it
meet requirement?
 Degrees as threshold defined by Academic Human Resources, don’t know how much wiggle
room we have, retroactively.
 Have to be talking about human aspect, not just a position but also a person.
 Should be looking at positon, not at the person in the position. We have a lot of calssified staff
with advanced degrees. Have to start with job description
 Any way to look at positions that require masters and why those were selected as APs instead of
faculty?
 Starting with position description, depending on when description was drafted they are
drastically different. How to evaluate the job descriptions when they are so different.
 This analysis intended to give a sense of the types of skills that are being hired for, the
responsibilities and types of work that cut across the different position descriptions to get at the
big themes.
Draft Survey -- JoAnn, Discussion Leader
Survey will run this month. Intention of this is to provide Dean with a sense of faculty and AP opinion on
this matter
Does anything in the draft need to be clarified?







when we look at implies the implication is that we will vote for clinical and specialized faculty.
Just ask first question or second and then go back and do the others.
In the first forum, some people suggested they couldn’t vote on the first set of questions if they
didn’t have inout on the other things.
we have the info – if you say yes these are the implications, this is what you can base your
answer on. Is it appropriate to have others decide on these other things? Colors or biases the
results.
Is the question of promotional paths for APs even up for debate? Haven’t heard anyone say no.
rephrase – the Library should define a promotional path for all APs via the clinical or specialized
faulty or some other path.
That conflates the issues. Some might be for a promotional path but clinical or vice versa
AP perspective – What does this mean for me? How do I make a decision?
Calrify that this isn’t just new appointments but changing existing positions.
Closing Discussion and Wrap Up -- Dean Wilkin
Keep in mind the value of conversation. Hope everyone appreciates the significance of this in terms of
organizational health. Library faculty who fear this might be the slippery slope of a “new” dean trying to
do away with faculty status should appreciate the depth of engagement and keep in mind the battles
that dean has fought with several key faculty positions. APs who are frustrated by a lack of recognition
should appreciate the thoughtful engagement of the entire organization in finding the best solution. We
will move forward and we will do better, whatever comes out of this.
Process is important to clarify issues, come away with a better sense of the issues. It’s clear we are all
embracing the sense that AP promotional path. The notion of the use of clinical faculty is a governance
faculty issue. Survey is an important piece, goes into faculty governance. Not just a matter of opinion
but into faculty governance piece. Conversations are important, healthy piece of what we do.
Next steps:
 The task force will finalize the survey send a note to libfac-l with a preview of the survey
questions.
 Two information sessions specifically for APs on Monday, October 5 at 4pm in 428, Thursday,
October 8 at 12 in 428 Library
 The survey will go out the 2nd or 3rd week in October and will be open to both APs and Faculty
We want input from APs and Input from faculty important to get input from both. John will review
responses discuss with EC.
Discussion:
 Appreciate John, JoAnn and others, provided us the opportunity to all talk about this.
 Everyone has been engaged deeply meaningful in this process
 Important we get the information right as to the consequences. Expectations of people in APs,
process that has to take place, decision making. What are all the ifs in the system.







These matter from the start, lot of complicated issues, some sense of certainty. Recognition that
the consequences depend on a number or things that come out of this, define the roles of
clinical faculty, lot of work over a long period of time.
Adding a why or why not box to the survey might expose some misconceptions or areas that
need more work on the part of the Task Force.
good opportunity to get information misconceptions or not.
It may also be possible to put an I don’t know. Might bring out some information.
blank comment box better than why– may feel forced to justify their decision.
There is also an open comment box at the end
This is not something that just occurred, this is something that has been going on for a long
time, development of Library as a profession and the way we do our work. This profession has
changed remarkably over last 10—15 years. Looking at the whole picture, our profession has
been changing profoundly.