Library Senate Emergency Meeting
12/9/2015
Voting members: Allen, Beales, Beamer, Bussert, Carlson, (Sec), Chang, Chen, Chopey
(UHPA), Ghosh (Chair), Kellett, Kleiber (Vice Chair), Lebbin, Minatodani (MFS),
Ouchi, Paseng, Polansky, Sack, Shiba, Shim, Shirts, Sinclair, Stoytcheva, Sung,
Waddell.
Non-voting members: Irene Herold, Ann Crawford
Convened: 1:32 pm
Senate Chair opened discussion with a brief time line of actions and discussions up
to today’s meeting. She suggested that Senate members speak about the issue at any
level, without the need to categorize the discussion. Senate members provide the
following thoughts, perspectives and questions:
--Money is a factor for digital projects--someone to establish relationships with
granting institutions for long term financial relationships.
--Lines between Technical Services and IT have blurred in the past—metadata is an
example—and the hope is for AULs for Technical Services and Public Services. Also,
this work should be done in Technical Services.
--Question and clarification about the two AUL positions, one as assistant and one as
associate, reporting lines were clarified. One member indicated that classification
documents do not show clear differences. Further clarification about the
classification documents.
--Classifications have more specifics in them, as compared to faculty levels
(example: Librarian IV). Categories in and of themselves are a distraction.
Suggestion to jump into the specifics.
--Suggestion to add fundraising to AUL for IT position description.
Clarification from Herold that the organizational chart does reflect fundraising and
grants. Members should consider for what are we hiring, what to emphasize and deemphasize.
--Current responsibilities cover everything, but no specific phrase for technical
services knowledge.
--The proposal was to reflect upon ideas, such as similar and complimentary role
with Crawford. One suggestion is that Herold and Crawford think about what is
needed at the Administrative level in the library, and conceptualize the AUL position
with a set responsibilities that complete an administrative team. Consider
centralizing the resources from the Division, and treat it more as a utility to share.
--Suggestion to change title for AUL to AUL for Digital and Instructional Technology,
Information and Research Services. Move the current DNS department to Collection
Services Division.
Group discussed structure of the AULs, Collection Services, Systems and DNS in the
late 1990s under the direction of AUL Gary McMillan.
--The Division head moniker is confusing, because division head responsibilities
between the three divisions are led by different levels (faculty and E/M positions).
The issue of parity, and representation and coordination with all of the division
heads at the same level is suggested.
--Question came up regarding the job description, and how much it could be altered
before requiring a re-organization. Do we need to re-organize before filling the
position? Is there a thresh hold?
--Senate Chair clarified that the Library Senate has not received the position
description yet to provide feedback, but what she had been hearing was that people
wanted to have this consultation prior to commenting on the position description.
Herold described her intended process: after the listening sessions, she, Crawford
and Tillinghast will discuss, pull the revised position description, and take into
account what she heard today. She will draw, also, on feedback from LDC, LLT, and
LSAG. Currently, there are great parameters within the functional statement, which
would allow a more modern description to fall into an integrated set of
responsibilities, as a few people suggested at the beginning of the meeting. If the
changes cross the thresh hold of the organizational chart, it will be pointed out.
--Suggestion to stay with the AUL position to directly supervise IT infrastructure
(DNS, Server teams) just as Crawford supervises Fiscal. The rest of Scholar Space
and Scholarly Communications could go under Public Services, then the Systems
functions could be transferred in part to the AUL (the server management). If the
rest of Systems needs to move, then move them under Collection Services.
--Following up on the idea of parity: the division head position, regardless of level,
are full time positions. Right now they’re filled with people who have jobs besides.
When you have a set of activities for two positions, the person in the role cannot
adequately fulfill either roll.
--There is an executive policy on re-organization. Changes in reporting relationships
usually requires re-organization.
--After reviewing comments and meeting, the Systems Office suggests that the
position be retained as an AUL to show a commitment to IT in all areas of the
Library, and the UH System. The current job description and functional statements
are sound, with some wording that needs to be modernized. Previous people who
held the position after the last permanent hire were not reviewed which may be
contributing to the disenchantment with the position. No need to change the course
at this time. The Library can be synergistic given the right resources.
Senate Chair clarified that the Library Senate has a biennial process, and decided not
to complete the review of the current AUL for IT, since she had already given her
intent to step down.
--Follow up on a previous suggestion: splitting DNS’s functions between IR/web site
and the other DNS functions is a good idea in integrating the outward facing
activities and sites with Public Services. Commenting on the suggestion coming from
the Systems Office: there are pluses and minuses, and the hope is that the gesture is
not merely symbolic. It goes without saying that we’re committed to IT.
--Agreement with a previous comment on burden on the division heads, and a
question about clarifying the lines of reporting.
--The University’s administrative policy on re-organization suggests that the
creation, abolishment, regrouping, or reassigning of functions, or the creation or
elimination of a new supervisory level would require a re-organization.
--IT should be a utility, like water or electricity. Should be transparent inside and
outside the library.
--What about the conversations regarding strategic planning and re-organization. Is
it better to have before or after filling this position?
--An observation that we, as a library, stop moving in a direction when reorganization comes up. It would have been better to have begun the discussion and
planning process while we still had the interim AUL. If we choose not to change the
role of the AUL simply because it will require a re-organization, then inertia gets in
the way of doing what’s best.
--Agreement, we were scarred by the last re-organization, but we can think
incrementally and start looking at what needs to be resolved before re-hiring, such
as issues relating to the dissolution of SRC. Suggestion to do more planning while we
still have people in positions. We knew we had an interim, but we waited to discuss
it until the last minute. More positions will be in this situation in the future, and this
should be part of a strategic planning process.
--Suggestion that department heads that are not at levels IV and V should also be
addressed.
Vice Chair reiterated a previous question to the room: is it better to hire now, or to
wait until after a re-organization?
--Either way, it will influence who is chosen for the position.
--IT people are adaptable people due to the nature of the work. They are well
prepared for change.
--Proceeding in that way could change the skill set needed for the final position.
--At LDC, the question came up about an interim, but the plan was not to appoint an
interim. If we wait until a re-organization, which takes a long time, it would take up
a great deal of Crawford’s time, from a time management perspective.
--Department heads had heard at LDC that temporary hires could be looked at for
Projects. Is this such a case? Could we hire someone temporarily, to give Crawford
breathing room so that she could lead us in strategic planning, and how do we do a
smart re-organization or at least not a horrible one? Is that a possible temporary
position, which would allow us to invest in ourselves?
Clarification about hiring an E/M position temporarily—the people could be within
or outside of the state system. VCAA gave Herold the ability to hire for a E/M
position temporarily in a previous case, but the salary level was not enough to hire
interested parties.
--How do we hire and still move forward with a re-organization. Is the position still
relevant with the new organization?
Herold reminded that there is no guarantee for any position we hire, but that “other
duties as assigned” allows for flexibilities with evolving positions.
--Strategic planning would give us a good idea for what we’ll need in the future.
--At a recent “Big Heads” meeting at ALA, they discussed the concepts of collections
as obsolete. Hiring should not be based on the needs of specific collections, but
should be broader, thinking more along the lines of an integrated library.
--Agreement that we should begin with strategic planning rather than the current
position at hand.
--A comment that the way the group has been discussing possibilities is exciting, and
looking at change in a positive way.
Herold thanked the group for the meeting. Based on a comment in the evaluation,
she took the opportunity to alert the Library Senate members that she had
negotiated travel funds for her professional development. In some cases, she
receives support from the organizations she travels to meet. Only GWLA and PRLA
are paid for using monies from the Library.
Senate Chair alerted the Senate members to propose items for the January Senate
meeting.
Adjourned: 2:58 pm