Minutes of the BLFC meeting held Jan. 3, 2001.

Present: Suzanne Thorin, Roger Beckman, Julie Bobay, Emma Dederick-Colón, Robert Goehlert, Elizabeth Johnson, Julie Nilson, Mary Popp, Saundra Taylor
Absent: Ann Bristow, JoAnne Deeken

1. The Minutes of the December 13 meeting were approved as amended.
2. Dean’s report (Dean Thorin)
   (Feedback from Associate Deans on proposed Matrix revisions)
   1. Dean Thorin and the Associate Deans liked the fact that the matrix was reversed, presenting performance levels from 1 to 4 rather than from 4 to1. They also found the matrix clear and easier to use.
   2. On the other hand, Dean Thorin expressed their concern with the weight given to performance in the proposed matrix. She suggested that a larger group should meet to discuss the impact that the weight in professional development and service will have in relation to performance and whether this is a desirable outcome. Dean Thorin presented the example in which a person could have a Level II in performance and that the total result would be higher than a II if both professional development and service are exemplary; she questioned the desirability of this outcome. She felt that the current system allows her to address the conflicting cases and allows her to compensate extraordinary achievements by giving extra merit if a person has excelled in the secondary areas as long as performance is above satisfactory, and she has done that in the past.
   3. Dean Thorin acknowledged that there were a number of people who worked hard day and night to keep Unicorn up and running and she expressed her gratitude.
   4. The Dean reported briefly on Unicorn, commenting on problems with the reserves module, and mentioning a letter sent to the School Deans and library heads advertising training sessions and other issues related to Unicorn implementation.
   5. The position for the Director of the Lilly Library has been posted and the position for the Web administrator will be posted soon.

3. Faculty Standards Committee (FSC) preliminary report on proposed Matrix revisions (Discussion continued from meeting of December 13, 2000) (Johnson) Elizabeth Johnson, in her role as Council member rather than BLFC liaison, provided alternative wording to the proposed changes from the FSC (attachments Ia-b). As stated in her proposal: The FSC committee believes that “minor changes to the matrix will better recognize librarians’ achievements in professional development, research and creativity without diminishing the high standards expected in the performance category.” The FSC committee does not feel that the proposed matrix changes the current emphasis on the performance category but rather allows the Peer Review Committee to recognize extraordinary achievements in the other two categories.

   In answer to questions, Elizabeth and Julie Nilson stated that the current changes are in response to two successive peer-review committees which have reported problems with the current system. The first year, modifications were made to the process (but not the matrix) in response to general complaints as well as comments from the committee. This year, the proposed modifications to the matrix are based solely on the peer review committee’s comments.

   Considerable discussion ensued about such issues as: the impact the money allocation has on people’s perception of the different levels of achievement; the peer review committee’s frustration at not being able to give the rating they wanted because of the current matrix; and the librarians’ responsibility towards achievement in all the three areas.

   The Council agreed to substitute the proposal submitted by Elizabeth Johnson for FSC’s proposal dated 12/13/2000.

   The Council accepted Elizabeth’s proposal for a one-year trial, during which feedback and analysis would be received from both the administration and the peer review committee as to its effectiveness.

4. Bloomington Faculty Council report (Mary P.)
   1. Mary Popp reported on two BFC meetings, November 28 and December 5, 2000. The Agenda Committee of the BFC continues to bring guest speakers to discuss important issues. Professor Dan Reagan of Ball State University, faculty representative on the Indiana Higher Education Commission (HEC), sees his role as providing faculty perspectives and establishing better and direct interaction between the HEC and the faculty. Don Weaver talked about the legislative process. He noted that appropriations for higher education have dropped from 20.8% of the general state budget in 1961-62 to 14.7% in 2000-2001. Purdue- West Lafayette has fared better over the last 10 years than has IU-Bloomington, but as a system IU does better owing to enrollment change funds. There has been considerable growth in some of our regional campuses. The current biennial budget included a 9.7% appropriation increase (including debt service, grants, and repair and renovation funds). There was actually a 12% overall increase in higher education funding. Extra money went to the state scholarship fund.
   2. The current session is to begin January 8 and end May 1. The mood and tenor of the session is likely to be tense because of reassessment, redistricting, property tax relief, and decreasing state revenue.
   3. IU has partnered with a number of technology groups from the state as well as the Economic Development Council to get more funding for technology.
   4. The IU budget request has three parts:
      1. Base adjustments (enrollment change + plant expansion [= new buildings]); this is done on a formula basis.
      2. Maintenance
      3. Quality Improvement/New Economy/New Investments
         Includes School of Informatics, student success, IU Link, and new degree programs on the regional campuses.
      The IUB Science Building is the No. 1 capital project for the system. Also an IUPUI classroom building, an IUPUI campus center, and land acquisition are planned at the regional campuses. The IUB Library renovation was not recommended by the HEC, nor was the proposed new library at IU Southeast; but the commission knows that the local legislators will push for funding.
   5. Discussion took place about the Promotion and Tenure Committee plan from the University Faculty Council to make procedures in system-wide schools more uniform. A committee will be formed to look at special issues, such as the Medical School at IUB and the Medical Education program at IU Northwest.
   6. The Educational Policy Committee brought a document to the council expressing areas of concern about the Distributed Education report. The document recommended the creation of a Distributed Education Committee and funding to allow the committee to operate during its initial year as a seminar to explore issues in Distributed Education. Document was approved.
   
   The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The Council worked in executive session until 5:00 p.m. discussing the report from the Center for Survey Research about the survey done for the Dean’s review.
   
   Respectfully submitted,
   Emma Dederick-Colón
   
   
   URL:http://www.indiana.edu/~libweb/index.html
   Comments: libweb@www.indiana.edu
   Copyright 2000, The Trustees of Indiana University