Shared Governance &
Administrative Structure
Karen Hogenboom
Kathleen Kluegel
Sue Searing (chair)
Tom Teper
Charge:
Explore "issues surrounding the relationships
between the Library's administrative structure
(including the Budget Group, the AULs and the
EC) - and their areas of overlap. This includes a
discussion of the core attributes of Library
shared governance."
Process:
 Reviewed legal and policy documents that that describe and/or
prescribe the University Library's current administrative structure.

University of Illinois
Statutes http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/statutes.cfm
 Article II Section 3 (Faculty Role in Governance)
 Article III Section 2 (The College)
 Article III Section 3 (The Dean)
 Article VI (The Campus Library)

Academic Staff Handbook, Ch. 1
http://www.ahr.illinois.edu/ahrhandbook/chap1/default.htm
 The College: Dean and Executive Committee

University Library Bylaws
http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/bylaws/index.html

Budget Planning Group Charge
http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/budget/charge.html

Library Executive Committee Charge
http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/exec/charge.html

Library Administrative Council Charge
http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/admin/charge.html
Process, cont.
 Asked the Library faculty for feedback on the
current written charge to the Executive
Committee.
 Received five substantive comments that expressed
dissatisfaction with faculty governance at the library
but did not suggest a concrete course of action.
Process, cont.
 Did a narrow environmental scan of other
departments on campus and other academic
libraries with faculty status to identify other
models of faculty governance.
 Differences in size of department and
organizational structure made for significant
differences in how decisions are made in each
organization.
 Other models won’t easily translate to our situation.
Process, cont.
 Met with Paula Kaufman to better understand
her perspective on the administrative
structure.
 Distributed draft report via LIBFAC-L and twice
requested comments.
 Four comments were received, which informed the
final draft.
 Submitted final draft to EC.
Current structure:
 The Statutes state:
 Dean of Libraries is the chief executive officer.
 Executive Committee is the primary advisory
committee to the dean.
 “[S]hall advise the dean on the formulation and execution of
college policies and unless otherwise provided by the faculty
of the college on appointments, reappointments, nonreappointments, and promotions and shall transact such
business as may be delegated to it by the faculty" (Article III,
Section 2(f))
 Advisory relationship is confirmed in the Academic
Staff Handbook and Library Bylaws.
 EC membership is elected, with staggered terms
and term limits.
Current structure, cont.
 Administrative Council is charged in the
Library’s bylaws.
 “[A]dvise the University Librarian about standards,
regulations and procedures affecting the general
operating policies of the Library... The primary
responsibility of the Administrative Council shall be
the day-to-day management of the Library."
 AC membership is by virtue of position;
relatively stable.
Current structure, cont.
 Budget Planning Group is charged by EC.
 “[A]dvise the University Librarian and the Assistant
Dean for Business Operations and Management
Information on budgeting for civil service and
hourly positions, library committees, and
operations. Certify the availability of funds for
academic positions. Seek advice from the EC about
budget priorities. Recommend final budget
allocations to the University Librarian. Monitor the
budget throughout the year.”
 Administrators by virtue of position + EC and
AC reps.
Current structure, cont.
 Budget Plus Group / NSM
 BG membership + others
 No longer exists
 AULs
 Permitted by Library Bylaws:
 “One or more Assistant and/or Associate University
Librarian positions may be established as needed by the
University Librarian in consultation with the Executive
Committee. Assistant/Associate University Librarians shall
be members of the Library Faculty.”
Key points:
 Tensions and balances built into the structure.
 Decision-forming workload spread over several
groups.
 Stability + turnover.
 Model = representative democracy.
 “Advisory” structure works because goals are
shared by administration and other faculty.
Recommendations: Investigate
1. Interview a sample of current and recent past
members of EC, AC, and the Budget Group. In
addition, interview newer Library faculty who
have not yet had an opportunity to serve on
these groups and old-timers who have become
disaffected and no longer seek a role in the
administrative structure.
2. Examine the potential for greater formal
involvement of APs in the Library's governance
structure.
Recommendations: Update
3. Update the written charge to the Executive
Committee.
Recommendations: Integrate
4. Involve the EC more directly in the
development of monthly faculty meeting
agendas, to include discussions of important
issues and directions to inform EC's own
discussions.
5. Look for ways to integrate the work of the EC
and the Budget Planning Group in order to
increase the role of non-administrative faculty in
the budget process.
Recommendations: Communicate
6. Improve two-way communication between the
EC and the faculty it represents. Fleshing out
the EC minutes to incorporate the major points
of discussions is one suggestion.
7. Share policy documents with the full faculty
(and/or staff, as appropriate) at earlier stages in
their development - when the drafts are
"draftier.“
Desired Outcomes:
1. Greater satisfaction with the Library's governance structure,
evidenced by increased attendance at faculty meetings and
wider participation in discussion.
2. A broader range of options presented to the University
Librarian for her consideration.
3. Reduction in the level of discontented muttering among
faculty and staff who feel their viewpoints are not solicited
and/or considered.
4. More transparent decision-making processes and better
documentation of them, particularly in committee minutes.
5. An increase in comments and questions submitted to the EC in
response to their calls for comments on proposed policies,
draft documents, and the like.
Core principles
I. Faculty governance in the Library relies upon a representative model, and
the obligations and mechanisms of such a model should be made clear to
all who participate in and are affected by it.
II. Unless otherwise noted in their charge, all committees discussed in this
document are advisory to the University Librarian.
III. As members of the Library's faculty, we are obligated to participate in
the Library's governance.
IV. The EC, AC, Budget Planning Group, and AULs have complimentary areas
of responsibility, but the responsibilities of each group should be clearly
delineated and differentiated.
V. The University Library is an academic unit on campus, but its operational
role impacts the nature of governance within the organization in ways that
distinguish it from units with primarily instructional and research roles.
Pressure points:
1. Role of the Budget Plus Group in the NSM Program.
2. Role of the AULS in faculty governance.
3. Evolving role and future of AC in light of possible
4.
5.
6.
7.
changes in divisional structure.
Tension between the faculty’s direct participation
in governance and trust placed in advisory bodies.
Short timeframes for decision-making.
Exclusion of APs from faculty governance (codified
in governing documents).
Non-participation by faculty.
Next steps?
 Our recommendation: more investigation via
interviews. Necessary or not? Who should
conduct them?
 Revise Executive Committee charge in Bylaws.
 Is the structure broken enough to do the work
needed to fix it?
 Is now the time to work on this?