Library Faculty Assembly meeting minutes

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Library Faculty Assembly meeting minutes
Physical Description:
Mixed Material
Creator:
Library Faculty Assembly
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00010872:00069


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Library Faculty Assembly Minutes – November 19, 2012, 10:30am ( Approved 12.18.12 ) Smathers 1A Officers present: Current LFA President, Matt Loving presiding; Naomi Young, Immediate Past President; Ben Walker, Chair Elect Locations attending: Smathers 1A, HSCL, Borland Call to Order 10:30 am I. Minutes approved II. Approval/Modification of Agenda and past minutes a. No modifications III. Assembly Chair report (M. Loving) a. Reviewed Article 9 (c) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Bylaws Governing Terms and Conditions of Employment. It specifically states: “Provisions in the bylaws (and revisions hereto) relating to tenure, promotion, merit salary increases, market equity salary increases, and performance evaluations must be approved in a secret ballot vote by a majority of all affected faculty in the relevant unit who are eligible to vote on the matter under consideration.” He brought this up so everyone would be clear as to why the LFA is using a secret ballot to vote on the evaluation issue. IV. Presentation – Discussion of projected budget for FY 2013 2014 (D. Bruxvoort) a. The Library Administration must turn in three budget proposals by 12/7 (flat budget, optimal or ideal budget, and a 5% cut which equals approximately $1.3 million, not including lost purchasing power). The deans will be meeting on 11/30 to finalize the proposals. They are seeking input, and have had some discussion in Branch Chairs, but are looking for “big picture” suggestions, including any services that could be cut. They are also including a list of services that the libraries offer to the university. D. Bruxvoort will be contacting specific individuals for additional information, but if anyone wants to make sure that certain services are included, they can contact her directly with that information. b. B. Keith added that the budget is a Library Council agenda item (meeting 11/28) and LFA officers (chair, chair elect) are included in that meeting. The budget proposals will be reviewed by the Budget Review Committee for the university. The official budget would be received at the earliest in April 2013, with discussion to finalize decisions. D. Bruxvoort stressed that any cuts proposed as part of this initial report will be non binding. c. M. Loving reported that he has contacted the LFA Budget Task Force to organize ideas about LFA input. As a member of that task force, B. Landor suggested that the cuts be dramatic, and further suggested that the LFA consider cutting collections. Feedback from LFA members should be given to LFA officers or to B. Landor. d. B. Keith further encouraged officers to bring feedback from LFA to Library Council and for officers to report back to LFA on the discussion from Library Council.

PAGE 2

e. N. Young asked how much of the budget is flexible or unencumbered, and specifically wondered about contracts and consortia agreements that would limit flexibility in terms of cuts. f. D. Bruxvoort reported that there is no firm number at this time. She said a flat budget is also an approximate $500,000 cut to collections because of lost purchasing power/inflation. In the last two years, that shortfall has been made up through carry forward money. The $1.3 million figure is not inclusive of the lost purchasing power. g. The discussion among LFA members indicated that no one was interested in cutting services or positions. The discussion centered on making cuts to the materials budget. Suggestions were made to include phrases like “core collection” in the proposal. It was also suggested that electronic databases be considered as possible targets for a cut. V. Information Items (N. Young) a. N. Young discussed the upcoming secret ballot vote and procedure. The ballot is designed so that voters will either vote for the adoption of the five tier evaluation levels or vote against the adoption of the five tier evaluation levels. The faculty senate software will be used for voting. Members will log in using their Gatorlink credentials. They will then be directed to one of three ballots, based on their status (in unit faculty, out of unit faculty, or FLVC faculty). This will allow for separation of the vote results. The ballot will be distributed either Monday (11/26) or Tuesday (11/27) and will remain open until 12/9. b. There was a question from the assembly regarding how these evaluation levels, if adopted, would be applied to merit pay. B. Keith stated that there is some language in the Career Development Handbook (section IIIe, Criteria and Evaluation Procedures for the Distribution of Salaries), but that it is vague. He further stated that each time merit has been available, there have been unique sets of rules and circumstances governing its distribution. c. Further discussion among the assembly suggested that the LFA Merit Task Force would review any situation in which merit was available and make recommendations to library administration for its distribution. Another point made is that Article 27 of the CBA has specific language that indicates that at a minimum a “satisfactory” evaluation is required to be eligible for merit. A further point is that there are no merit plans used in previous years in the Career Development Handbook. Each time merit has been awarded, evaluations have been used as part of the process in determining its application. VI. Action Items a. None at this time Meeting adjourned at 11:40 am Submitted: B. Walker, 11/29/12