Dear SC Members,
Allyson Mower, Chair of the Status of Academic Librarians Standards and Guidelines Review Task Force requested SC to review and respond to ACRL Documentation and Guidelines for Academic Librarian Employment and Governance Systems and its accompanied Transmittal Form. I setup the new poll for us to respond. In this way, we can track the voting process. Please review the attached documents and respond before March 1, 2018. Thank you so much indeed!
Did they include an additional note that addressed the changes they made and any that we suggested and they did not make? It is helpful when groups do that.
They didn't include an additional note that addressed the changes they made and any that we suggested and they did not make. I attached everything that they sent to me. Thanks for the great question.
I see some corrections that I would recommend before it goes forward.
Page 3: Heading: (with initial revisions)… what does initial mean here? Are they going to send it back through if it’s approved for more revisions? If no then initial needs to be taken out.
Page 3 Introduction: Since this document is designed for librarians with faculty status only, what guide do they propose for librarians without faculty status? The current policy for those individuals is on the rescind list.
Page 3 Introduction: The second to last sentence… “in minor detail” that would be up to the institution would it not? I agree the adjustment statement should be there, but the minor detail is what concerns me.
So I guess my question is... Is this an up/down vote or are they willing to edit?
As I am reviewing this, I realized that these are six different documents and really require six different transmittal forms. To rescind documents is an entirely different process (read the policy). The ones that are being recommended to stay each require a separate form and a statement within the document noting that it was updated without changes (if that is the case - one needs links updated). One is a joint statement and I think there needs to be someone from the AAUP involved in the review. I will have more comments, but there is definitely a need to resubmit the documents separately.
The most significant thing they need to do is submit each document separately and follow the ACRL procedures for rescinding the two documents. When they resubmit, please ask them to address each of our suggestions in an email. I printed out the suggestions we made and noticed a few that were not made.
transmittal form: please include the date of the public hearing. It would be helpful to have the positions of the experts that were consulted.
The Guideline for the Appointment... looks okay to me, except for one thing we pointed out previously. On page 5 they reference the statement on faculty status for academic librarians which they are recommending be rescinded. That should not be included.
The Joint Statement on Faculty Status: in addition to my comments above, links need to be updated (this was mentioned previously, too).
Thank you so much for your comments and question. I will forward your comments to Allison as soon as I can. I hope that they are willing to edit.
Thank you so much for this. I will share your comments with Allison and see if she is willing to make change as soon as I can.
Dear SC members,
i received feedback from Allyson and David. David recommended a virtual conference call so that we discuss our differences with the task force. I scheduled a conference call tomorrow at 11:00 CST. Please call 605-475-4767 with access code 803673.
unfortunately I teach at 11 tomorrow...
I would like to particularly know what they plan for librarians who do not have faculty status since they are recommending rescinding the document that pertains to that group.
A Guideline for the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure of Academic Librarians
B. Probationary Appointments
My question: In what way(s) does “Probationary Appointment” address “Visiting Librarian”? The rank of “Visiting Librarian” is absent from the document. Many, including myself, were ranked as “Visiting Librarian” at time of appointment. In my case, I was re-appointed at the rank of “Visiting Librarian” for five years – Longer than usual for IU; but necessary because of budget constraints and because, at the time of my appointment to “Visiting Librarian”, another Librarian was on tenure-track.
I was promoted to “Assistant Librarian” after my five years of “Visiting”; and am up for promotion and tenure to “Associate Librarian” this summer with five additional years under my belt – total ten years full-time service.
That said, I understand the complexities of achieving tenure across the spectrum of Academic Librarians; but would like to see in writing how “Probationary” and “Visiting” Librarian differ, or not, in brief. Many colleagues I know go through the rank of “Visiting” rather than “Probationary”.
Another question: If a tenured Associate Librarian is terminated per a post-tenure review, the Guideline most certainly should include what steps must be taken by the Library as a University Department to insure administration will not be in the positon to take away the vacant tenured position vacated by due process, correct? It is my opinion if the Library does not have a guideline to follow from the ACRL on this front, they could be susceptible to losing the position all together.
I will have more comments, if necessary, as I continue to read through the documents.
I, too, am booked with classes and meetings all day tomorrow and will not be able to attend the conference call.
Hi Katherine and Scott,
Thank you so much for your feedback. I can reschedule the conference call based on everyone's availability. Here is the Doodle poll:
Looking forward to our meeting Thursday afternoon.
Thank you so much for your response to Doodle Poll. There will be two meetings tomorrow on March 1. David, Bryan Clark, and Amanda will meet from 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm. David and Nancy will meet from 2:00 to 3:00 pm. The conference call number is 605-475-4767. The access code is 803673.
I hope we can build consensus on issues related to the approval of ACRL Documentation and Guidelines for Academic Librarian Employment & Governance System and transmittal sheet. The poll for voting can be extended to March 3.
Thank you very much indeed!
I have a busy day; and I apologize for not participating in either call. I look forward to the details discussed regarding the Guidelines for Academic Librarian Employment & Governance System.
What time zone is this? I am on the call now and nobody is there. These last minute meetings are difficult to fit in.
Hi Nancy and all,
Thanks for trying to connect via conference call this afternoon. David and Bryan were busy. But they sent us revised document and comments. Here is David's comments when he sent to TF and me:
Greetings all – As to the transmittal question, yes there are several actions rolled into the proposed document that would perhaps require separate consideration by the Board of Directors, especially the recommendations on rescinding existing documents. But I also think for now that the Standards Committee can consider the recommendations of the task force as a whole on how to deal with the six existing documents. We can sort out the administrativia for the Board after the Standards Committee has made a final decision on the concepts/ document put forward by the task force. If the Standards Committee approves the recommendations as a whole, we can parse them out into separate actions for the Board of Directors to consider as needed. But what the task force put forward was a single document that merges the concepts included in the existing multiple documents developed by the former Status Committee and replaces the existing documents with what is essentially a new overarching document dealing with the concepts as a whole. Since they are proposing a single document to take the place of the six existing documents, it could very well be that a single Standards Committee transmittal form is sufficient for the committee to do its work. As I said, we can parse out the actions for the Board of Directors later in the process as needed.
With the complexity of this particular process (involving multiple documents up for revision with different recommendations), I think it could be a good idea to hold a virtual meeting of the Standards Committee, along with representatives of the task force, to solely discuss the work of the task force. That way the SC members could ask questions of the task force members as Allyson suggests. This may facilitate the process a little better than the asynchronous Connect/ email conversations in this particular case.
I want to thank you all for your work on this process as well. While the journey has been sort of arduous, I think the association and the professional will benefit from the work you are all doing. d-
Attached please find Bryan's revision and his comments to questions raised by Nancy and Katherine. Please review the attachment and see if we can still vote on March 3 before 7:00 pm. Otherwise, I will do another poll with mid March deadline.
Thank you all for your hard work!
Chair, ACRL Standards Committee
Sorry to miss the meetings, I've traveled yesterday and today for work. My concerns were addressed and i'm willing to vote if we are ready for that.
Hi Katherine and all,
I discovered a minor editing need in TOC, which I fixed it. Other than that, I agree with Katherine that we should vote. Voting "yes" to this document will enable academic libraries to develop an employment and governance system for the purpose of defining the intellectual role of the librarian and to establish due process and academic rights for librarians no matter the employment category. It is a complex document. But that's the best job that the TF is willing to do. Let's vote if there is no other issues. Thanks a lot!
I still find it confusing to submit six documents as one, but I will follow David's suggestion. There are still a few minor corrections:
In the table of contents: remove "(with initial revisions)" from document to revise
They removed the footnote to one of the rescinded documents as I requested, but the text still says "within the context of two ACRL policy statements" (page 3). There is only one now.
My question about including a representative from AAUP in the discussions of the joint statement was not addressed.
I think one last proofreading by the task force would be advisable.
I'll change my vote to yes, with these minor corrections.
Thank you so much indeed for this. I fixed the minor changes that you suggested and would ask Bryan to double check again before forwarding this version of the document for the Board.
50 E Huron St. | Chicago, IL | 60611 | USA
© 2009-2020 American Library Association
Request a New Community