Docstoc

LFA MEETING

Document Sample
LFA MEETING Powered By Docstoc
					                                      LFA MEETING
              Minutes of February 7, 2006 at 3:00-5:00 pm in Main Library A313

   In attendance:
   Paula Wolfe, Ping Situ, Chestalene Pintozzi, Veronica Reyes, Amy Verheide,
   Amara Edwards, Pat Promis, Laura Bender, Janice Simmons-Welburn, Jill
   Newby, Louise Greenfield, Laurie Eagleson, Jen Tellman, Maliaca Oxnam, Karen
   Tallman, Gabrielle Sykes Casavant (guest), Dan Lee, Jeanne Pfander, Karen
   Holloway, Shelley Phipps, Chris Kollen, Mary Evangelist, Yu Su, Michele
   Saunders, Barbara Williams, Atifa Rawan, Yan Han, Doug Jones and Carla
   Stoffle.


   AGENDA
1. Update/Comments from LFA Chair
   This is the first meeting for the 2006.

   Welcome to Mary Evangeliste (UST), new LFA member and to Debbie Smith,
   new SGA Rep in LFA.

   Farewell to Karen Holloway who will be leaving, not retiring but “rewiring”. She
   has made many contributions to the LFA and was especially helpful in getting
   information for the work of the Compensation Committees and recently with
   leave and travel information and assistance. Best wishes for Karen!

   Congratulations:
   o To Marianne B. in her appointment to the UA Commission on the Status of
     Women. She will be a great asset to the work of the group.
   o To Chris K for the approval of her sabbatical leave for 06/07. She will begin
     her leave in February 2007.
               Chris’ project is called the Arizona Historic Census and Economic Data
                Project: This project will research what Arizona historic (1910-1960)
                population, industry and economic data and documents are available, digitize
                that data and make it available on the Arizona Electronic Atlas. She plans on
                digitizing boundaries of census geographic subdivisions and enumeration
                districts and then adds population, industry and economic data to the
                digitized geographic boundaries. This digitized data will then be added to the
                Arizona Electronic Atlas. She will also investigate the availability of city and
                county boundaries in digital form as part of charting changes in the state of
                Arizona since 1912 and then these will also be integrated into the Arizona
                Electronic Atlas.

   Other activities:
   --The Professional Activity Fund group (aka LFA/Professional Travel Committee)
   did a great job. Thanks to Bonnie Travers, Alex Rivera, Chestalene Pintozzi, and
   Barbara Allen.
   --Thanks also go to the Committee on Committees for conducting the ballot and
   to Ping Situ who linked the online Travel/Leave Request Form
   http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/library/lfa/ to the LFA webpage. Doug reminded
   the ad hoc Travel Committee that they need to conduct the review around
   March/April 2006.
   --Doug was invited to participate in a special budget meeting with SLRP and
   Cabinet on January 27 as Carla develops the Library budget proposal for the
   coming year.
   --LFA elected officers for 2006 (Doug Jones -- Chair, Elizabeth Kline – SGA Rep,
   Veronica Reyes – Cabinet Rep and Ping Situ – Secretary) met with Carla to
   provide feedback on possible reconfiguration of Associate Dean and team leader
   position.
   --LFA members that were newly appointed to the Library MROC were Alex
   Rivera., Chestalene Pintozzi., and Sara Heitshu. Laura Bender was appointed as
   the Cabinet representative. Assoc. Dean Janice Simmons-Welburn will chair the
   group until she leaves in March 2006. Saad Dagher, Tim M. and Gaby Lopez are
   the MROC members from the SGA. Janice and Doug prepared a draft charge for
   the group. The group is expected to revise LFA MROC survey (conducted in
   Spring 2003) and administer to all staff during 2006 to assess progress, prepare
   and present analysis of survey to the Dean, Library Cabinet and all staff.

   Update from Veronica R., the new LFA Rep in Cabinet
   There were two major issues where LFA members would be asked to provide
   feedback. Team Leaders will be bringing this up at team meetings. 1) Feedback
   on proposals from Cabinet to make changes on the way Cabinet communicates
   out. You should have seen a couple of emails on this. 2) Feedback on Critical
   processes. Again, Team Leaders will bring this up to teams. Veronica
   encouraged LFA folks to provide the feedback requested. Veronica also wanted
   to hear from the LFA how she can communicate well with the members and get
   the needed feedback. If you have any questions or concerns but let her know.

2. Progress report from the Rank Expectations Team
   (Chris K., Marianne B., Dan L., Janice S-W., and Doug J.)

   Problem: There are recurring issues and questions about whether there are different
   expectations and what the differences in those work expectations should be for Assistant,
   Associate, and Full Librarian/Curator with respect to library work assignments. Criteria
   for promotion to ranks are described in the P&CS criteria.

   Background: Most recently, Cabinet has raised this issue with respect to compensation
   for promotion from Associate to Full status. (1) Dean Stoffle asked Assoc. Dean
   Simmons-Welburn to address the issue. LFA held a small-group dialogue sessions at
   the August 2005 meeting to try to elicit the concerns and issues of LFA members. (2)
   The issue of rank expectations has also arisen in other LFA dialogues including those
   related to post-continuing status review in Spring 2002. (3,4) The P &CS criteria
   describe differing expectations for those ranks. (5)
   Product: Documented agreement describing the roles and expectations of different
   ranks.

   Progress:
      I.     Sent out questions to other libraries to find out if they have differing
             expectations for faculty by rank and if so, how it is implemented.
      II.    Met with Juan Garcia, Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs to find out if there
             are performance expectations by rank build into post-tenure review and how
             people are held accountable
      III.   Met with Cabinet to have a discussion around Cabinet member’s concerns
             around issues related to defining different expectations by rank and how
             faculty might be held accountable.
      IV.    Sent out a survey to LFA members.

   Next steps:
   Go through all information they have gathered in order to articulate key issues and areas
   of concern, then they will develop draft expectations that will be shared with LFA to get
   feedback.


3. Pay Raises.
   As clarified in a recent email from the President Peter Likins, all UA employees
   with satisfactory performance evaluations will receive an annualized pay increase
   of $1650 effective the March 13 pay period, pro-rated for those less than 1.0
   FTE. As for the additional 2.5% performance adjustment money that the UA will
   receive, the University must provide to ABOR as quick as possible a plan for
   distribution. Because this is a faculty compensation policy issue, shared
   governance is actively involved in this decision and meetings are beginning on
   Feb. 7. Doug strongly recommends LFA to provide feedback for this fund
   adjustment. Any input to this process will need to be done very quickly. Because
   of the shortness of time, Doug will collect and summarize the input from LFA and
   forward that to the appropriate individual(s) or group(s) in the coming week. The
   university administrators must submit a plan to the ABOR by March 9 2006.

   K.H: Carla has been meeting with the campus administrators and she will share
   with LFA and SGA further information. Career Progression (CP) will be moved up
   to accommodate this fund adjustment.

   D.J.: The governor has included in her budget request 10 million dollars for key
   personnel funding for the University of Arizona.
   J.T.: We don’t know for sure if the library will get the 2.5% of the merit money for
   merit/career progression?
   D.J.:No.
   C.P.: I read the bill and it is performance based.
   S.P.: If the money comes in for merit, we can use it for CP.
   D.J.: The library may or may not get this money for CP due to other possibilities.
   C.P.: There are discussions about how to distribute the money, such as for the
   graduated students’ salary. But this does not look very likely to happen.
4. SOAR Grant
   The LFA SOAR (Support for Outstanding Academic Research) Grants were
   established with a bequest in 2000 to support scholarly research in aspects of
   librarianship and scholarly inquiries outside the field of librarianship that
   demonstrates a relationship to your field of expertise. The SOAR Grant program
   is designed to provide incentives and support to LFA members (archivists,
   librarians, and curators) seeking to develop or complete projects of academic
   significance. Individual grants of $500-2000 are awarded annually following an
   application and review process. The application deadline is March 1st for funding
   to be used within the following July-June fiscal year. More information is available
   at http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/library/lfa/soargrant.htm

   Issue: There were no applications and, consequently, no SOAR grants awarded
   for the 04/05 and 05/06 fiscal years. There has been an inquiry regarding
   whether or not an application made by March 1st this year could be funded on a
   different cycle, beginning in the Spring this year rather than July 1, 2006 and
   being completed within a year of the start date.
   Doug wants to know if LFA support this variation from the normal cycle and if
   there are any questions or concerns.
   C.K.: this change is only for a particular application?
   D.J.: Yes. It will not be a base change.
   J.P.: They want to speed up and use the money in spring?
   V.R.: People like to start sooner?
   D.J.: Yes. They want to start to interview students, etc in the spring semester…
   M.O.: The normal application deadline is March 1 and will be notified in April. Is
   there any money left at the end of the FY?
   C.P.: This money is from the interest of an endowment. It will not impact the
   ability to fund.
   D.J.: It has been almost two years that this grant has not been applied.
   M.O.: Will the committee review this application just like reviewing any other
   previous ones?
   D.J.: Yes. I will appoint a committee to review this application. Next year the
   cycle will still be based on the fiscal year fashion (06/07).
   J.N.: support.
   Summary: no major concerns or reservation from LFA attendees were perceived
   regarding this issue. Doug will check with Carla to see if she has any thoughts on
   this and he will let LFA know about the final outcome.
   [NOTE: in a subsequent consultation with the Dean, she did not have any
   significant concerns related to the proposed exception in the funding schedule.]

5. Report from the ad hoc Merit Review Committee
   (Michele S., Maliaca O., and Louise G.)

   Maliaca O. presented the report. The committee italicized the sentences that they
   thought would hold special interest for the LFA members. The final report is located in
F:\Teams\LFA\Lfa Shared\Perf & Merit Review (2005)\LFAperfmeritsummary(FINAL
REPORT).doc.

Some colleges sent replies with very detailed and lengthy documentation. If LFA
members are interested in those, please contact one of the committee members.
All the personal information of the documentation has been stripped in order to
keep the confidentiality. The dept examples that Dr. Juan Garcia shared with the
library were the ones that he thought worked well.

Committee members did not discuss among themselves about which strategies
might work well for the library. They just highlighted the ones that seemed
interesting such as multi year review, five point scale, merit separate from the
annual review, performance review determines if applicants are eligible for CP,
single year combining with multi year review, etc. Committee also thought that
having a clear, good documentation was a good idea.

Updates from faculty governance representatives (Dave B., Chestalene P.,
Robert M., and Doug J.)

Both Dave and Robert were absent at the LFA meeting.
Chestalene. A system-wide report to the ABOR regarding the results of post-
tenure review for the most recent year showed the following: only about 0.02% is
unsatisfactory; about eighty some percent is excellent; 15% acceptable.
General comments: performance is not the only way to get salary increase. If we
can get some key personal money, certain budget-related pressure would be
reduced and we will be doing much better than we are doing now.

Doug mentioned a report by UA Chief Information Officer Sally Jackson to the
Faculty Senate. This was the same report that she delivered to the ABOR the
previous week. He noted that the issue of institutional repositories and datasets
was one of many items included. He also referred to the Network Master Plan
NMP which has implications for access and cost for the Library.
http://computing.arizona.edu/networkmasterplan/index.html

The Dean Carla S attended the last part of the LFA meeting. She shared some
budget information with the LFA. As of January 2006, the Fall applications are
40% lower than the previous years at this time; this is a concern if the situation
continues. If the library fee proposal is approved by ABOR, it will bring in @
$ 300, 000 for the library per year; proposal calls for a $7.50/student/semester
fee. She is setting up meetings with campus administrators and student leaders
to discuss these budget-related issues.
She is asking the university:
    o 5% increase of Information Resources (IA) budget for the inflation cost.
    o 2% new money for the digitization and buying electronic back files.
    o 2 FTE of faculty positions for the instruction.

Doug Jones adjourned the meeting at 5:07 pm.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:12/13/2011
language:
pages:5