Karen Hogenboom Kathleen Kluegel Sue Searing (chair) Tom Teper Shared Governance & Administrative Structure.

Karen HogenboomKathleen Kluegel

Sue Searing (chair)Tom Teper

Shared Governance & Administrative Structure

Charge:

Explore "issues surrounding the relationships between the Library's administrative structure (including the Budget Group, the AULs and the EC) - and their areas of overlap.  This includes a discussion of the core attributes of Library shared governance."

Process: Reviewed legal and policy documents that that describe and/or

prescribe the University Library's current administrative structure.  University of Illinois Statutes 

http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/statutes.cfm Article II Section 3 (Faculty Role in Governance) Article III Section 2 (The College) Article III Section 3 (The Dean) Article VI (The Campus Library)

Academic Staff Handbook, Ch. 1 http://www.ahr.illinois.edu/ahrhandbook/chap1/default.htm The College: Dean and Executive Committee

University Library Bylaws http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/bylaws/index.html

Budget Planning Group Charge http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/budget/charge.html

Library Executive Committee Charge http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/exec/charge.html

Library Administrative Council Charge http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/admin/charge.html

Process, cont.

Asked the Library faculty for feedback on the current written charge to the Executive Committee.Received five substantive comments that

expressed dissatisfaction with faculty governance at the library but did not suggest a concrete course of action. 

Process, cont.

Did a narrow environmental scan of other departments on campus and other academic libraries with faculty status to identify other models of faculty governance.Differences in size of department and

organizational structure made for significant differences in how decisions are made in each organization. 

Other models won’t easily translate to our situation.

Process, cont.

Met with Paula Kaufman to better understand her perspective on the administrative structure.  

Distributed draft report via LIBFAC-L and twice requested comments.  Four comments were received, which

informed the final draft.

Submitted final draft to EC.

Current structure:The Statutes state:

Dean of Libraries is the chief executive officer.Executive Committee is the primary advisory

committee to the dean.“[S]hall advise the dean on the formulation and

execution of college policies and unless otherwise provided by the faculty of the college on appointments, reappointments, non-reappointments, and promotions and shall transact such business as may be delegated to it by the faculty" (Article III, Section 2(f))

Advisory relationship is confirmed in the Academic Staff Handbook and Library Bylaws.

EC membership is elected, with staggered terms and term limits.

Current structure, cont.

Administrative Council is charged in the Library’s bylaws.“[A]dvise the University Librarian about

standards, regulations and procedures affecting the general operating policies of the Library...  The primary responsibility of the Administrative Council shall be the day-to-day management of the Library." 

AC membership is by virtue of position; relatively stable.

Current structure, cont.Budget Planning Group is charged by EC.

“[A]dvise the University Librarian and the Assistant Dean for Business Operations and Management Information on budgeting for civil service and hourly positions, library committees, and operations.  Certify the availability of funds for academic positions. Seek advice from the EC about budget priorities. Recommend final budget allocations to the University Librarian.  Monitor the budget throughout the year.”

Administrators by virtue of position + EC and AC reps.

Current structure, cont.Budget Plus Group / NSM

BG membership + othersNo longer exists

AULsPermitted by Library Bylaws:

“One or more Assistant and/or Associate University Librarian positions may be established as needed by the University Librarian in consultation with the Executive Committee. Assistant/Associate University Librarians shall be members of the Library Faculty.”

Key points:

Tensions and balances built into the structure.

Decision-forming workload spread over several groups.

Stability + turnover.Model = representative democracy. “Advisory” structure works because goals

are shared by administration and other faculty.

Recommendations: Investigate

1.  Interview a sample of current and recent past members of EC, AC, and the Budget Group.  In addition, interview newer Library faculty who have not yet had an opportunity to serve on these groups and old-timers who have become disaffected and no longer seek a role in the administrative structure.

 2. Examine the potential for greater formal

involvement of APs in the Library's governance structure. 

Recommendations: Update

3. Update the written charge to the Executive Committee. 

Recommendations: Integrate

4. Involve the EC more directly in the development of monthly faculty meeting agendas, to include discussions of important issues and directions to inform EC's own discussions.

5.  Look for ways to integrate the work of the EC and the Budget Planning Group in order to increase the role of non-administrative faculty in the budget process. 

Recommendations: Communicate

6.  Improve two-way communication between the EC and the faculty it represents.  Fleshing out the EC minutes to incorporate the major points of discussions is one suggestion.

7.   Share policy documents with the full faculty (and/or staff, as appropriate) at earlier stages in their development - when the drafts are "draftier.“ 

Desired Outcomes:1. Greater satisfaction with the Library's governance

structure, evidenced by increased attendance at faculty meetings and wider participation in discussion.

2.  A broader range of options presented to the University Librarian for her consideration.

3.  Reduction in the level of discontented muttering among faculty and staff who feel their viewpoints are not solicited and/or considered.

4. More transparent decision-making processes and better documentation of them, particularly in committee minutes.

5. An increase in comments and questions submitted to the EC in response to their calls for comments on proposed policies, draft documents, and the like.

Core principlesI.   Faculty governance in the Library relies upon a representative model,

and the obligations and mechanisms of such a model should be made clear to all who participate in and are affected by it.

II.  Unless otherwise noted in their charge, all committees discussed in this document are advisory to the University Librarian.

III. As members of the Library's faculty, we are obligated to participate in the  Library's governance.

IV. The EC, AC, Budget Planning Group, and AULs have complimentary areas of responsibility, but the responsibilities of each group should be clearly delineated and differentiated.

V.  The University Library is an academic unit on campus, but its operational role impacts the nature of governance within the organization in ways that distinguish it from units with primarily instructional and research roles.

Pressure points:1. Role of the Budget Plus Group in the NSM

Program. 2. Role of the AULS in faculty governance.3. Evolving role and future of AC in light of possible

changes in divisional structure.4. Tension between the faculty’s direct participation

in governance and trust placed in advisory bodies.5. Short timeframes for decision-making.6. Exclusion of APs from faculty governance (codified

in governing documents).7. Non-participation by faculty.

Next steps?

Our recommendation: more investigation via interviews. Necessary or not? Who should conduct them?

Revise Executive Committee charge in Bylaws.

Is the structure broken enough to do the work needed to fix it?

Is now the time to work on this?