| 1997: 2-26
| 4-21 | 6-16 | 7-21
| 8-17 | 10-20 | 11-17
| 12-17
- December 17, 1997
Present: Nancy Emery, Suzanne Genz, Skip Hamilton, Barbara McMynn,
Curt Williams, James Williams.
Chair: Nancy Emery
Recorder: Barbara McMynn
I. Discussion Re: Cabinet members on the Library Advisory Board and
if this could be a conflict of interests?
Action: Barbara Greenman will bring the LAB archives to the Jan. meeting,
where we will review the LAB Bylaws regarding who may be on the LAB
and if administrators are listed. It was felt that there would not be
a problem and that administrators would be a welcome addition to the
Board.
II. The Dean's Meeting was held on November 24, 1997. The Dean began
with remarks at 8:45 and a panel discussion with the Dean and the Associate
Directors followed. The panel answered questions that were submitted
to the OCI. (See attachment at the end of the minutes for the Evaluation
responses from the Libraries Staff and Faculty.)
A. Discussion of the summary of concerns inferred from the 11 individuals'
who responded to the evaluation. The LAB would like to thank the people
who responded to the evaluation. It is helpful to the Libraries and
the LAB to get feedback on issues and events.
Action: Jim spoke with Pat Wagner regarding the LAB responses and concerns
regarding the Dean's Address. Her observation was that the questions
had come across to her as filtered, thereby appearing disrespectful.
It was suggested that questions should not be collected before meetings
in order to facilitate an impromptu discussion. She hoped that her seminar
encouraged individuals to make choices, participate and take responsibility
for their comments and actions. In the future, consideration will be
taken to separating the Dean's Address from other Library issues such
as the OCI list of questions.
Action: Jim would like Faculty and Staff to know that he is available
to speak with anyone who has comments and concerns. E-mail James.Williams@colorado.edu
or call 492-7512 to schedule a time to meet with him.
Action: The Administrative Services Home Page (ucblibraries.colorado.edu/as/index.htm)
will include the addition of buttons for all Campus Service Offices
and Human Resource Information.
III. Library Advisory Board Book Exchange in the Staff Lounge
A. Needs updating, refreshing
B. Maintenance
Action: The LAB is responsible for the Book Exchange and will regularly
update and maintain it. Details will be worked out in the agenda setting
meeting on Jan. 20. In the meantime a "Bring one, Take one" sign will
be posted and an e-mail message will be sent to Norlist encouraging
people to bring in books and exchange books.
IV. Bin
A. ULR
Action: Susan Anthes, Scott Seaman and Janet Hill have discussed the
ULR in their Departmental meetings and it was decided that everthing
will be done to try and maintian the ULR in its current form, for now.
The ULR policy may be reviewed at the agenda setting meeting in Jan.
B. Signage
C. Orientation packets, web site
V. Johann Suggestion Box. No issues in suggestion box.
VI. Other
Jim approved catering for the Jan. 20, meeting with new members.
Action: Barbara M. has ordered muffins, coffee and orange juice for
the meeting. The Committe will decide new meeting times for next semester
w/new members on Jan. 20. Nancy Emery will send an e-mail to the new
members as soon as the faculty decision is official.
Attachment
The Deans Address Evaluation was sent out on e-mail November 24, 1997.
The following is a list of the 11 responses that were received.
1. Was the day and time of the meeting convenient for employees?
- It worked for me. I prefer the morning format, since I am a morning
person. We had a couple of people in our unit who didn't/couldn't
attend due to conflict and/or workload.
- Yes
- Yes
- Fine
- Yes
- It was ok - a little later so one could get things going at work
first.
- It might have been better a week earlier, with the new/promotions
reception in late Oct.
- I'm not fully conscious at that hour, but others seemed to be, so
it was probably fair enough.
- Yes
- It was an O.K. time.
- Yes, convenient for me.
- Yes
2. Were your concerns addressed in the meeting?
- I didn't formulate any of the questions per se, but I thought the
responses to the broad questions were as good as could be expected
when Jim had to guess at the real question. I do think more of the
nitty gritty could be distributed in paper form: organizational chart,
list of helpful support offices and contacts, with examples of possible
reasons to approach that way, etc. Maybe Scott could offer a presentation
solo just on those types of issues. I am glad that the Libraries are
up for another evaluation in 1998. This will provide good feedback
on progress since the '92 report. I for one think the accomplishments
of OCI are many. This morning's session is a case in point.
- I didn't have any concerns, but it was interesting to learn about
the scope of the items records problem, and what will have to be done.
- No
- Not all of them.
- Yes
- No - but I didn't voice them, so
- Nope
- Yes, except the subject material does come under the heading of
frequently questioned answers.
- I stayed only for the Dean's address, not the questions as I needed
to get back to work.
- Mostly - I would have liked to hear more about the budget and future
plans for the library; less in response to similar questions (the
ones about how to deal with personnel problems). Those concerns were
not answered very clearly or seriously.
- Seemed like a waste of time. All issues could have been answered
at other scheduled meetings. Dean should not have to talk about counseling
services, etc.
3. If not, what concerns do you have?
- I'm concerned that one day Norlin Library will collapse of its own
weight due to lack of funding and that I will be buried underneath
it.
- I feel the organization of the Library and the Library within the
University was not very clearly illustrated. While some questions
were so basic that the answers might have bored some, I think many
could have use at least a review of how such things as the budget
are formulated, how Policy is established and how Library personnel
policies (flex, supervisor evaluation, Colorado Peak Performance)
are or will be run through the Library.
- It would be "personnel issue" and not answerable.
- What's being done with Charlyn's position - not wasting time and
staff putting the ULR on the Web, what's been accomplished this year
(projects, retro, etc.), changes in policy, stats, projects for next
year, specifics.
- None - if I have a concern I get it unconcerned.
- Lack of Faculty attending Dean's meeting, or is it Staff only !?
4. What was the most favorable part of the meeting?
- Both the food and the talk were good.
- The openness of cabinet to answer the questions and not be defensive.
- I liked Suzie Bock's comment that Chancellor Byyny should come and
look at all the work in cataloging.
- The Dean talking about Off-Site storage, his relationships with
his superiors, the capital Campaign etc. I always find it interesting
to see the broad lines of the Libraries' direction described.
- I enjoyed it all.
- The food.
- The plug analogy, the insights into the Chancellor's outlook toward
libraries, and the fact that the Dean seems to have mostly mastered
brevity.
- You mean aside from the food? The Dean sharing his comings and goings
with campus folks, and the impact on the libraries. Also, having the
AD's there to answer questions for which Jim doesn't know detailed
answers.
- Hearing a "state of the library" report.
- Dean's first 15 min. as he talked about the big picture and vision.
5. What was the least favorable part of the meeting?
- It could have gone longer, but only if we were allowed to get up
and stretch.
- That the questions were not specific enough. Perhaps Jim could havecommented
about that when the e-mail of the question list was postedasking for
more specificity (say that 3 times fast!). Given the limited amount
of time, we should answer concerns directly.
- Any talk about budget cuts I may have missed.
- Organizational Information Presentation
- It was all ok.
- The dullness of the questions, their lack of specificity.
- Nothing. It seems to be necessary to go over this stuff bi-annually.
- The way the panel "answered" the concerns raised by OCI, as if they
hadn't seen the questions in advance. The answers should have taken
the questions at face value, even if they DID have hidden meanings.
It would have shown more respect for the people who asked the questions.
As it was, I felt that the panel found the questions slightly ridiculous
as they were phrased, but rather than finding an informative and creative
way to answer, they blew them off.
- The rest of the 2 hours as everyone pretended not to know "what
the real question" was!
6. Additional comments or suggestions:
- It was supposed to be a discussion, but when Carl had a followup
question, he was cut off.
- It would be nice to have something to eat with chocolate in it (chocolate
croissants) along with all that healthy stuff that was there.
- I think the Organizational Information could have been more effectively
presented with overheads and handouts of different org charts with
specific scenarios described. Also a list of major committees with
acronyms and charges might have been useful. I know that a list of
committees has been made and reference could be made to that list,
but an annotated list of major groups (Deans Meeting, Cabinet, Council,
LAB, OCI, Fac/Staff Dev, COG, LSA, faculty meeting etc.) would be
useful.
- Infrastructure needs: A short dais would be useful so that we could
see speakers, including an additional (three?) microphones for this
type of a panel discussion.
- Thank you. You are welcome.
- Try rousing the audience with some provocative questions of his
own.
- Good show!
|
