MAUT LIBRARIANS' SECTION

Transcription

1 MAUT LIBRARIANS' SECTION Montreal, November 27, 1997, 12:30pm General Meeting *** Present: Executive Committee: E. Yarosky (ch.), J. Aitkens, M. Richard, M. Fransiszyn plus 15 members. Observer: Juan Vera, President-Elect, MAUT *** Agenda Item 1. Welcome and Call to Order *** E. Yarosky in the Chair, called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present, including Prof. Juan Vera, President of MAUT. *** Agenda Item 2. Adoption of Agenda *** *** Agenda Item 3. Adoption of Minutes of Section Meeting, May 14, 1997 *** The minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1997 were adopted, as moved by J. Hebert and seconded by M. Berger. *** Agenda Item 4. Business Arising from the Minutes *** Business arising from the minutes was covered by agenda items. *** Agenda Item 5. Policy Issues *** *** 5.1 Guidelines for Merit Allocation *** John Hobbins described a plan which he as Acting McLennan Librarian had proposed as a method of Merit Allocation and tried for one year in the Humanities & Social Sciences Library. All librarians were asked to submit in writing a list of what they had accomplished in the three categories of work performance, contributions to the University and contributions to the professional and/or scholarly community. They could also include some self-evaluation. A mathematical formula was devised to incorporate each element, with work performance accounting for 70-80% of the total. Each element was multiplied by weighting, work performance by a factor of seven and each of the other criteria by a factor of one and one half. No A's or E's were given out, only B through D. The results were then given to the Director of Libraries. Later, the Director of Libraries asked him to present his plan to the Senior Management Group. Area librarians can make recommendations but comparisons can only be made at the Director of Libraries level. It was pointed out to John Hobbins that because of budget compression, dwindling staff, and increased workloads, more weight should be given to work performance. Hobbins replied that between 70 and 80% of merit was attributed to work performance but it could vary from year to year. M. Richard pointed out that the Executive had met with the Director of Libraries when it was pointed out that some units already have established procedures. Hobbins replied that his procedure would not override them and they could be used to feed into his. V. Mayman asked whether there were written evaluations in all units every year. M. Richard replied that there was variation from unit to unit. Some have less formal procedures. John Hobbins plan was especially useful for units with no procedure. John Hobbins commented that the administration considers it "not helpful" when formal evaluations are not done and that F. Groen believes everyone should have one. M. Richard pointed out that the section on Hobbins's form regarding activities is similar to what each librarian is asked to submit for an annual report.

2 P. Riva thought that merit should not be for work performance; it should be divorced from promotion and tenure. Documentation, evaluation, and procedures are totally different for each. L. Rapkin stated that work performance was essential to merit allocation. E. Yarosky asked how we would know what weighting was applied in a given year. John Hobbins responded that we should strike a figure. L. Rapkin, P. Riva, and V. Mayman commented that a supervisor cannot evaluate in other areas other than work performance. E. Yarosky asked about the possibility of peer evaluation. John Hobbins responded that there must be a critical mass to have it. There could be a non-administrative representative involved in the process. E. Yarosky countered that F. Groen had not been too keen on the idea. V. Mayman commented that there are groupings in the library system, e.g. CTS or branch libraries, with a critical mass. John Hobbins responded that we have to leave each unit do it their way. J. Aitkens commented that it would be different for one unit that worked together and for another which was an artificial unit. She also commented that we could ask if the Director of Libraries set percentages. V. Mayman proposed, seconded by L. Rapkin, a motion to approve/support the method proposed by the Director of Libraries based on John Hobbins' method. For: 13 Abstentions: 3 *** Agenda item 5.2: Librarians' Section Newsletter *** E. Yarosky opened discussion by asking whether the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter should be continued. Other options are posting the Newsletter on the AMUL-L listserv or have articles in the MAUT Newsletter. : John Hobbins preferred a regular column in the MAUT Newsletter. E. Yarosky commented that the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter required a lot of work but there were no volunteers to edit it and work on it other than members of the Executive. S. Rankin suggested that it be placed on the MAUT Librarians' Section web page to save paper. M. Richard commented that the Newsletter was useful to inform people of what is happening. The listserv could be used for timely items. M. Fransiszyn pointed out that access to the web page is not restricted at the moment, but J. Aitkens said that it could be. Action taken: L. Rapkin proposed, seconded by C. Oliver, that the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter be discontinued and that we distribute the minutes in paper or electronic form, and that we used the AMUL-L listserv for news items. Carried. *** Agenda item 6: Reports *** *** 6.1 Chair (E. Yarosky) *** E. Yarosky said that the Chair's report was published in the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter. She gave a brief update concerning the Regulations, the AMUL-L Listserv and salaries. She apologized for the abrupt way in which the listserv was restricted to Section members as had been agreed previously by the membership. E. Yarosky reported that there were modest increases at beginning levels: $32,300 to 34,000

3 $38,647 to 39,000 $49,797 to 50,200 $30,760 (sessional salary) remained the same Librarians were excluded from the anomaly money available at the merit exercise because their salaries appeared to be above average salary at Group of Ten institutions. A discussion ensued on this issue. : E. Yarosky pointed out that all administrators' salaries which had been included inflated the average. She had brought it up at MAUT Council but it showed little interest in pursuing the matter since usable figures, differentiated by rank, are not available. She believed that we would have to do it ourselves. M. Richard said that the only figures available are from ARL. The first problem is that each institution defines for itself who to include and whether or not to include chief librarians. The second problem is that the figures include total salary and the total number of librarians which are then divided to give the average salary. McGill is one of the Group of Ten institutions. The Université de Montréal has no "professional librarians." Another institution in Ontario did not differentiate between librarians and library assistants. All of this skews the figures. It would be useful if we could get the ranks and number of people at each level from each institution. The problem is that each does not have the same rank structure. This would partly compensate if administrative librarians were included. Professors' salaries are broken down by rank. The CARL questionnaire leaves it to each institution to determine how many librarians it has. E. Yarosky said that we have to convince MAUT that we need better figures. V. Mayman commented that the one thing professors have is a common rank system. She thinks the issue should be decided at the Director of Libraries' level and that the Director should bring it up with the CARL directors. J. Hebert commented that CARL has never had the figures and that the only possibility was individual appeal to individual institutions. M. Richard said that part of the problem is that the information is considered confidential. V. Mayman thought that the President of MAUT should also ask the Director of Libraries. John Hobbins thought that the figures from CARL, leaving out administrators, do exist. When E. Yarosky suggested that J. Hebert take up the issue before the Academic Salaries Policy Committee. J. Hebert responded that this was not appropriate and that we must go through the President of MAUT. John Hobbins volunteered that he could ask the Director of Libraries to get the figures from CARL. V. Mayman commented that the data is already a couple of years old. E. Yarosky commented that we have lost 16 librarian positions in two and one half years, some of them held by long-serving people, presumably at the higher end of salary range. The average salary of McGill librarians might be lower by now. E. Yarosky proposed that a small group of volunteers look further into the issue. J. Hebert and M. Berger volunteered. John Hobbins commented that this may be premature because we may not be able to get the figures. He said he will talk to the Director of Libraries about it. *** Regulations *** E. Yarosky reported that the grievance procedures had been passed by Senate. The draft revisions of section 1-5 had been examined by Prof. Foster who made suggestions for changes. The most significant change suggested involved the Promotions to Librarian Committee. The draft document will be posted on AMUL-L before it is sent to the joint MAUT/Administration Committee and then to Senate. *** Promotion to Librarian Committee *** Regarding section Prof. Foster had said that we should maintain high standards. This eliminates the possibility that someone

4 would be promoted to Librarian without doing anything in either of the two other categories. A "distinguished" contribution could be made in any of the three areas. The present requirement is a superior in work performance, a superior in one of the two other categories and a reasonable in the third. This is not spelled out for other faculty. L. Rapkin said she does not agree with Prof. Foster's comments. E. Maclean said that she has problems with the word "distinguished" which seems to be more appearance than substance. She said she also has problems with having only a "reasonable" allowed in a category when someone is promoted to Librarian. She said she is uneasy with this. E. Yarosky commented that Prof. Foster hadn't liked the word "distinguished" and had suggested "excellent" instead. M. Richard said that if all Librarians were superior, we would all become average. We must specify to what we are superior. John Hobbins commented that for faculty, superior meant in relation to other faculty. M. Richard said that to his mind, "distinguished" means different and admirable (positive). John Hobbins said that we need a change from the existing wording. V. Mayman moved, seconded by S. Grant, to accept Prof. Foster's idea reworded by M. Richard and amended by E. Yarosky. Approved. *** Composition of Promotion to Librarian Committee *** Prof. Foster and the Library Administration had also recommended that three librarians instead of five sit on the Promotion to Librarian Committee. E. Yarosky stated that this suggestion had been generally approved. All librarians, not only members of the Section, had been notified of the proposal by and twelve had sent in their approval. There was a question on who had an official vote in general. V. Mayman said that sessionals should not vote. E. Yarosky and John Hobbins responded that they thought that sessionals were barred from voting. V. Mayman said she is against [reference to] full-time librarians because we have part-time permanent staff. P. Riva said it does not matter if sessionals vote. E. Yarosky thanked members of the Executive and Professional Issues Committee who had worked on the revision of the Regulations. *** 6.2 Treasurer (M. Fransiszyn) *** The Payroll deduction plan was launched. Application forms were sent out to all McGill librarians. Twenty-five dollars was deducted from the last paycheque in October for each of those who filled out and returned the form. Thirty-two people returned signed application forms by the deadline. There were 5 late submissions, of which 2 requested to pay with cash. Current membership stands at 37 out of a total number of 51 librarians with membership in MAUT and eligible for membership in the Section. There are a total of 60 full and part-time librarians in the system. The Secretary-Treasurer extended an apology to those who had been mistakenly dumped from the AMUL-L listserv. *** AMUL Award *** M. Fransiszyn reported that the AMUL Award has not been presented for the last three years and therefore we should reexamine

5 its purpose. M. Fransiszyn presented a brief history of the Award and reported that, contrary to a resolution passed at the last meeting to deposit $600 in the fund, the Executive had decided to delay and deposit only $300 until this meeting when the nature of the Award could be discussed by the membership. J. Aitkens said that if we were to change the purpose of the Award, she would like to see it given to the Library Assistant of the year which she thought would convey a concrete sign of solidarity between librarians and library assistants. J. Aitkens also said that if we do not deposit any more funds in the endowment, she would like to propose a dues reduction. It was generally agreed to decide at the next general meeting what to do with the Award and whether to deposit another $300 in the endowment fund. *** 6.3 Report of Past Chair (M. Richard) *** The report of the Past Chair was published in the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter. *** Section Archives *** M. Richard stated that an agreement has been reached with the McGill University Archives that the archives of the Section and of AMUL will be deposited there. M. Richard said that he is currently sorting through the material and organizing it. M. Richard also stated that he will prepare a manual which will include a records management policy for the Section. *** 6.4 Senate Committee on Libraries (J. Aitkens) *** In addition to her report published in the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter, J. Aitkens reported that the appointment of the new Vice-Principal for Technology, Prof. Pennycook, has been announced and that the Director of Libraries is excited about it. She stated that, as quoted on the McGill URO web page, he does not "micromanage." *** 6.5 Senate Highlights (V. Mayman) *** V. Mayman reported on a joint Senate-Board of Governors meeting that had been held the previous Monday. At this meeting, the Principal had stated that he expects a consultative document regarding the future of universities in Quebec to be produced and therefore another joint meeting will be held in January or February. The report will cover program duplication and rationalization among other things. V. Mayman said that the Principal had also issued an interesting document placing universities in one of five different categories: The first category was described as private research-intensive institutions, with high tuition fees and a large endowment. McGill is not in this category. The second category was of private liberal arts universities, small, with fairly high tuition fees, a substantive endowment, a low student-faculty ration, concentrated on teaching. The Principal thought that McGill could be in this category but a lot of downsizing would be necessary for that to happen. The third category was described as where McGill has been but in which to remain, it would need a lot of money. It consists of public research-intensive universities with low tuition, reasonable endowments, with state funding of about 50% and a studentfaculty ration of between 17 and 20 to one. Category four is reserved for public and less research-intensive universities, e.g. the California State university system. The Principal thought that Quebec universities would move into this category in which less faculty and staff are needed. The fifth category is that of community colleges with public funding and little research. The Principal said that McGill does not want to be in this category. In Canada, there are no private universities but there is a differential in tuition because of the transfer of funding from the federal to the provincial governments. The gap has widened between provinces because some have increased tuition while Quebec has not. If we want to stay at the middle level, we must adjust funding, protect certain core units, and let the faculty-student ratio rise. The Principal said he prefers a quality-driven strategy, and therefore reduce the number of students. McGill is faced with another $20

6 million cut. *** 6.6 Professional Issues Committee (C. Oliver) *** In addition to her report published in the MAUT Librarians' Section Newsletter, C. Oliver stated that the curriculum vitae guidelines drafted by the Professional Issues Committee had been posted on the Section web page. She said that she had received very few comments. The Committee is therefore proceeding with the guidelines dossier. E. Maclean commented that the guidelines had been very well put together. *** Nominating Committee Report (M. Richard) *** M. Richard reported that there had been two positions to fill and they were filled as follows: Academic Salary Policy Committee J. Hebert FQPPU Comité ad hoc sur les bibliothèques L. Piatti On a question from E. Yarosky, M. Richard confirmed that the Committee is working on devising nomination procedures. *** Agenda Item 7: Other Business *** E. Maclean enquired about the McGill-Concordia agreement. V. Mayman said she had a copy of the agreement dated May 1997 and that it was no longer confidential. J. Aitkens stated that the Senate Committee on Libraries had instructed Vice-Principal Chan to sign the agreement, and that nothing much is likely to happen until Concordia University has appointed a new Director of Libraries. J. Aitkens stated that the Section's web page was really on an Intranet, not on the World Wide Web and we may have to remove it since it is against University policy for associations to have a web page on the Intranet. J. Aitkens said she would investigate further. Adjournment L. Piatti moved, seconded by C. Oliver, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm. M. Fransiszyn Secretary