1. Approval of January 2016 General Assembly minutes (M. Janz)
   The assembly approved these minutes.
2. Dean’s Report (J. Lucia)
   Rowland had been told by Janz that the University president has been visiting the Collegiate Assemblies around campus to discuss the new stadium. Rowland told Lucia and Lucia contacted the president about visiting the AAL. Some dates were suggested and Lucia will confirm.The president called a special deans meeting about the state budget situation. President is quite sure the money will be released and the rumor is that it will be released in April. As long as it is released before June 1, there won’t be an impact on this year’s budget. Last week Lucia met with the budget committee. It’s undesirable to continue to rely on annual dollar amounts, especially in the RCM budget model. Lucia has suggested to the committee a student digital resource fee which would help us close our funding gap and allow us to work internally to deal with our own budget. We’d like to have more endowment support in the future. 18 renderings of the internal spaces for the new library have been released and will be shared at the next All Staff meeting.The 100% construction documents are due to bidders on Friday. Those bidders currently have the 95% documents. The Excavation process has been slightly delayed.Preliminary looks at furniture for staff space in the new building has begun. Two more visits are scheduled to look at public furniture options.
3. AAL Calendar (F. Rowland)
   Rowland put forth an idea from Steering Committee to create a Google Calendar that would have all the AAL meetings and events posted to it, such as PARA and Merit timeline dates, Steering Committee and General Assembly meetings, Continuing Education events, and so forth. Each committee would be responsible for adding those dates to the calendar. The Assembly overwhelmingly supported pursuing this idea.
4. Sustainability in New Building Projects (K. Grady, K. Shiffert)
   In 2008, then university president Ann Weaver Hart signed a pledge to make Temple carbon neutral by 2050. Current university president Neil Theobald signed the White House’s American Campus Act on Climate Pledge and will be signing the updated Presidential Climate Commitment. On Earth Day, it will be announced that we’re also building on Philadelphia’s Resiliency Plan.As part of the 2010 Climate Action Plan, Temple’s goal is to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve already reduced by 15%, which is quite impressive especially taking into consideration how much more building space exists today than in 2010. Temple also boasts the only Philadelphian university to have a solar project. There are also new, more efficient lighting systems in many places that librarians apparently never go. There are also some student led initiatives taking place such as the Rad-Dish Co-Op cafe located in Ritter Hall and the construction of a tiny house that will begin this summer.All new buildings on campus are part of the Green Building Policy. All new buildings and renovations must meet LEED gold standards. SERC was the first new building to meet this standard. There are a lot of easy ways to get to gold, but the policy stipulates that 30% of the LEED points must be in the Energy & Atmosphere category.The new library will have a number of features to increase energy conservation. There will be glazing on the windows that will help control solar heat gain. The heating system will be a radiant floor system and there won’t be forced air. A displacement air system will circulate ambiently temperatured air through the building. The lighting is not completely LED, but the more frequently lit spaces all use LED lights.

   The new library will also have a green roof which will reduce the campus’ heat island effect and reduce the library’s heat loss. There will be an intensive and an extensive green roof that together will take up 85% of the roof. The other 15% is public space.  All the building’s water will be filtered before going into storm water systems. There will also be permeable paving outside the building to allow more absorption of storm water into the ground.

   The ruble from Barton Hall when through the same process that all demolished buildings on campus go through. The furniture went to local schools or the surplus store. Any technology equipment left behind went to the Computer Recycling Center. The building is stripped of its toxic materials before it is demolished and then the debris is sent to the construction recycling company we use. They are usually able to divert 80% of the debris. The company we use also has an artist in residency program that lets artists use the debris for art installations.

5. Old Business
   None
6. New Business
   None

ACADEMIC ASSEMBLY OF LIBRARIANS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TUESDAY, January 12, 2016
2:00PM
Paley Library, Digital Scholarship Center
MINUTES

Attending: Jenifer Baldwin, Doreva Belfiore, Steven Bell, Brian Boling, Anastasia Chiu, Mark Darby, Kristina DeVoe, Matt Ducmanas, Fobazi Ettarh, Lauri Fennell, Erin Finerty, Leanne Finnigan, Andrea Goldstein, Josue Hurtado, Margaret Janz (recording), Noa Kaumeheiwa, Delphine Khanna, Karen Kohn, Molly Larkin, Rebecca Lloyd, Joe Lucia, Jill Luedke, Jessica Lydon, Chad Nelson, Katy Rawdon, Fred Rowland (chair), Cynthia Schwarz, Caitlin Shanley, Matt Shoemaker, Margery Sly, Sandi Thomson, Kim Tully, Diane Turner, Nancy Turner, Elise Warshavsky.

1. Approval of September and November 2015 General Assembly minutes (M. Janz)
   Some typing errors were noted for the November 2015 minutes and both sets were approved pending those corrections.

2. New staff introduction (D. Khanna)
   Elise Warshavsky joins us as the Digital Projects and Services Librarian in Digital Library Initiatives. She will be helping with DPLA and various other projects, including Hydra. She has her MLIS from North Carolina Chapel Hill. She’s studied in England and Spain and worked for the Presidential Historical Society and the Philadelphia Museum of Modern Art. She has a background in photography and has built some photo databases. She has no dogs or cats but is an avid gardener.
3. Dean’s Report (J. Lucia)
   Building update. There is now a hole in the ground where the new library is going to go. Last week the bid documents went out for early site work. Excavations will begin soon. Much of the work will be the preparation and security of the site. Drilling is expected to start in March and lower level foundational work is anticipated to begin in mid-April. The main contract bid will go out the first week of February and the signing is expected the first week of May. Proper construction will be starting in early May. By this time next year, there should be substantial work above ground.The 80% construction designs came in in November. The 95% designs will be due at the end of January. The budget has been stabilized. There have been some positive developments that are due to some better and less expensive engineering.They’ve started looking at furniture and equipment and that process will become more public in the coming months.

   We will need to start moving in May and be in the new building by August first. If we’re not in by then, we have to wait another year because we can’t shut down the library during the school year.

   Hiring update. The Scholarly Communication Specialist has been hired and Annie Johnson will be joining us in February. The search for the Web Services Librarian failed. They’ll be rewriting it as an MLS-preferred position. Soon they’ll be posting for the Director of Library Technology and starting the search for a new developer in DLI. There are 2 positions at the Health Sciences Library that have interviews soon.

   Budget requests documents just came in. There is no official state budget yet which is problematic. There’s a very large potential cut to materials if the state budget doesn’t come in. Brian Schoolar has done a great job getting us into a secure place if that happens. We’re asking for a 4% materials budget increase and an increase for the Press. We’re also propsing a Digitla Content Fee to help with the increasing costs of digital resources. This fee would be similar to the technology fee students pay.

4. Update on Resident Librarians (A. Chiu and F. Ettarh)
   Begin with some clarification about their positions. Some staff have been confused. Both are doing a two-year residency in the library. Residencies are term positons for professions who have their degrees. Internships, in contrast, are term positions most often held by those still pursuing their degrees. There is more information about residency programs on the ACRL website and they have started a blog about their own experiences at Temple Libraries: https://sites.temple.edu/libraryresidentscorner/.For their first year in their residencies, they are rotating around different departments in the Libraries but soon they will be starting a capstone project that they’ll work on from September to August 2017. They’re hoping to start organizing in early summer so they encourage input and suggestions for projects – even if they did not do a rotation in your department.

5. DPLA Update (D. Khanna and D. Belfiore)

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is a nation-wide portal of digital objects. The DPLA aggregates digital objects (like  images, photographs, text, maps, audio and video) shared by libraries and archives’ special collections all across the United States. They are currently seeking objects like the ones that we have in our ContentDM Digital Library here at Temple.

DPLA has a service hub model where each state or regional service hub aggregates the content for all the institutions it represents to provide a single content feed to DPLA. The goal is to get all 50 states covered. Currently 24 are represented.

The benefits for Temple’s involvement in this initiative include discoverability of our materials, collaboration cross-institutionally for digitalization, and the re-use of objects in apps and APIs, which means fewer silos of content.

Temple got involved largely thanks to Joe Lucia, who helped set up the original planning group in August 2014. In the Spring and Summer of 2015, Temple and Penn State developed and built a PA DPLA aggregator. Our application to be Pennsylvania’s service hub was then prepared and submitted. Our application was accepted in August 2015. In the fall 2015, Temple began the orientation and metadata review with DPLA staff. Currently, we’re working on a lot of metadata clean up and Pennsylvania’s data is scheduled to go live on the DPLA website in Spring 2016.

The aggregator that Penn State and Temple developed is based on Hydra/Fedora which is open source. The code for the alligator is available on GitHub. The aggregator harvests metadata and exposes it via OAI-PMH, a data-sharing standard. It makes it must easier to harvest, clean, and edit metadata by providing a user friendly and human readable interface.

We plan to submit 131,637 records to DPLA after the first harvest. The majority of the records come from academic institutions, but there are records from public, special, K-12, and other institutions as well. The top five contributing institutions are Temple, Villanova, University of Scranton, University of Pennsylvania, and the Free Library of Philadelphia.

Most of the funding for our involvement in DPLA comes from two LSTA grants through IMLS. There was also seed funding from the Free Library of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State University, Temple, and the University of Pennsylvania. The funding supports 1 FTE project manager hosted at Temple. This was initially filled through Doreva and Leanne Finnegan’s time, and is now divided between Doreva and Elise Warshavsky. The funding also supports other staff members time, including Kate Lynch, Chad Nelson, Leanne, and Delphine. It also supports other expensive like travel and server hosting. PALCI acts as the fiscal agent for the project.

There are many working groups for this initiative, and most are cross-institutional and represent a large number of volunteer hours. The Founders Group consists of the people who were at the original meeting and act as proto-governance structure. The Aggregator group works on software and infrastructure. There are also Developers and Metadata groups.

Institutions that have digital files but do not have repository capabilities will have content hosting support from POWER Library and is free for Pennsylvania institutions. For organizations that have not started digitizing materials or haven’t done much digitizing can receive a Scribe scanner from the State Library of Pennsylvania.

In the next few months, the plans are to go live on dp.la, as well assist several new instituions to onboard their metadata for Summer 2016, help current contributors add more records, improve project branding and online presence with the help of Rachel Cox, and attend DPLAFest Conference as a new service hub. Additionally plan to assess initial differences in digital object discoverability pre- and post-DPLA exposure, increase communication and outreach efforts, develop more robust governance structure, and manage grants and funding paperwork.

Questions from the assembly:

So far it seems like most of the contributors are from Eastern Pennsylvania. What are the plans to get more participation from Western PA? Intent is to expand to the west. There had been some support and interest but some institutions are not ready with content or are having some internal reorganization that is slowing the process.

What are the plans for linked data with DPLA? DPLA wants to do this but it is very difficult. They’re working through it incrementally.

6. Old Business
   None
7. New Business
   None

Adjournment at 3:07pm.

1. Approval of the minutes (Janz)
   The minutes from the March 2015 AAL General Assembly were not ready for approval.
2. Remarks/Open Discussion with the dean (J. Lucia)
   Dean Lucia has been meeting with every department for the past few months to discuss their unique activities and challenges. He is writing up a document to describe what he’s seen and heard and what positions he sees as being priorities. He plans to make a bullet-pointed list of these observations and share it with everyone.

   Part of this comes from comments on the employee survey about a lack of clarity of the vision and story of the new library. The Strategic Action working group will be working on creating an annual cycle of vision and goal sharing. The Dean says he is committed to following through with the ideas and intentions of these actions.

   The building design for the new library is complete and the cost estimates are in process. One estimate is close to the original budget. Over the next month they will get all of the decision points together to make sure the budget estimate matches with the needs of the building.

   Soon the Dean hopes to get staff input on the design for the furniture and staff spaces. It is possible that some site visits will take place. He wants engagement from the staff but cautioned that there is a limit to the budget.

   The Digital Scholarship Center is waiting for its furniture delivery. We are still interviewing CLIR fellows.

3. Vote of Proposed By-law Amendments
   1. AAL General Assembly Membership & Attendees The Assembly voted unanimously to approve the proposed amendments.
   2. Continuing Education Committee Composition The Assembly voted unanimously to approve the proposed amendments.
4. Discussion on Application of Membership
   Two Library staff members requested consideration to be voted into AAL. The Assembly discussed any concerns about having a vote at the next General Assembly meeting to grant them membership.
   1. Andrew Diamond The Assembly expressed no concerns about voting this candidate into membership.
   2. Jessica Lydon The Assembly expressed no concerns about voting this candidate into membership.
5. Annual Reports of Committees
   1. Continuing Education Committee (J. Hurtado) The Continuing Education Committee was comprised of Aslaku Berhanu, Josue Hurtado, Caitlin Shanely, and Richie Holland. The Continuing Education Committee hosted 3 events this year: one about the DPLA in which Temple University Libraries’ involvement with them was announced, Nancy Kranich spoke about Privacy in Academic Libraries, and the nGen Performance Group spoke about generational differences. The last event was co-sponsored by the Dean’s Office. The bylaws were changed at this meeting so the website can now reflect the current practices of the Continuing Education Committee.
   2. Faculty Senate Library Committee (E. Hsue) Eugene Hsue was absent from the meeting and the Assembly did not hear the report from this committee.
   3. Merit Committee (B. Boling)
      The Merit Committee this year consisted of Brian Boling, Kristia De Voe (Chair), Erin Finnerty, David Murray, and Caitlin Shanley.

      The Committee considered 15 applications for merit awards, the most in recent history. The Committee met twice in person to deliberate and rank them, and submitted their recommendations to the Office of the Dean of Libraries.

      Three applications were recommended in the Highest category of meritorious activity; eight were recommended in the Outstanding category; three were recommended in the Deserving category; and one applicant was not recommended. One application was later withdrawn due to a departure. Applicants were informed via email that the merit award recommendations submitted by the Dean of Libraries to the Provost had been approved as submitted. Letters confirming award units have yet to be received as of this writing. The available merit pool consisted of 64 units at $350 per unit.

      The merit calendar was similar to prior years as the committee decided to give applicants additional time to submit materials, selecting the day following the return from winter break as the submission deadline. Committee members fielded questions early on from newer librarians concerning available position descriptions, the submission of two most recent annual reports and supervisor recommendations. Supervisors had the rest of the month of January to review applications and write evaluations. The merit process was discussed in Steering Committee and General Assembly meetings.

   4. Promotion and Regular Appointment Committee (F. Rowland)
      The PARA Committee reviewed 12 applications for contract renewals this year and approved all. Doreva Befiore, Leanne Finnegan, and Matt Shoemaker were promoted from L1 to L2; Adam Shambaugh was promoted from L2 to L3; Jill Luedke earned permanent appointment.

      The contract was changed this year so that instead of four one-year contracts and a two- year contract, employees would have three two-year contracts before being eligible for permanent appointment. Six people who would have received a one year contract this year were given two year contracts. Carla Davis Cunningham and Rowland are working on revising the PARA procedures documentation to reflect the TAUP contract changes. There will be no more fall contract renewals. They are also looking into making the contract and promotion documentation one document, but there are some problems with that plan.

   5. Representative Faculty Senate (F. Rowland)
      The Representatives from the Libraries this year were Fred Rowland and Kristina DeVoe. One of the most discussed items on the Faculty Senate this year was the RCM budget model. There were also many questions about the promotion and tenure process that came up in the TAUP contract renewal process.

      Another issue that arose this year was the organization of adjunct faculty. There was a movement to have them form their own union and then a push to have them join TAUP. The Faculty Senate Steering Committee voted to remain neutral on the issue.

      Oher topics that came up included the Master Plan, the Fly in 4 promotion, and the reorganization of the calendar and curriculum. The Committee acknowledged that not all bylaws across Colleges are consistent and there’s an effort to correct this.

      Also this year the Provost spoke about a 2+2 program with a university in China.

      The topic of the new library came up a few times, but the Dean of Libraries was advised not to speak about it at the Faculty Senate.

   6. Selection and Appointment Committee (K. Rawdon)
      The Selection and Appointment Committee for 2014-2015 consisted of Katy Rawdon (Chair), Brian Boling, Latanya Jenkins, and Nancy Turner.

      One search begun in the 2013-2014 fiscal year was completed this year. Kimberly Tully accepted the position of Curator of Rare Books, Special Collections Research Center and began work in January 2015. Andrea Goldstein was the committee representative.

      During 2014-2015, one search was completed. Matthew Ducmanas accepted the position of Special Collections Cataloging Librarian, Cataloging & Metadata Services, and began work in January 2015.

      Katy Rawdon was the committee representative.

      Current searches are Collections Analysis Librarian, Acquisitions and Collection Development (committee representative is Nancy Turner), and Reference and Instructional Services Librarian, Reference and Instructional Services (committee representative is Katy Rawdon).

      Brian Boling will be the committee representative for a forthcoming search: Digital and Web Services Librarian, Digital Library Initiatives.

   7. Steering Committee (M. Larkin)
      The Committee met monthly. Meetings generally consisted of the Dean’s report, which often led to further discussion, and the reports of other AAL committees. The Committee also made appointments of 3 TAUP librarians to help compose the Merit Committee. Following discussions on what constitutes a professional in today’s academic libraries, the Committee recommended that a by-law amendment be proposed that would open guest attendance at General Assembly meetings to be more inclusive of those serving the Libraries in professional-level positions but whose job titles do not fall into the traditional definition of a librarian. The Committee also requested that the Continuing Education committee review their committee composition and make necessary by-law changes to reflect the Assistant Director for Administration’s permanent membership on this committee. Both these by-law changes were discussed at the March 2015 General Assembly meeting and will be put to vote at the May 2015 General Assembly meeting. In addition, the Committee discussed the applications of two library personnel, Andrew Diamond and Jessica Lydon, who requested full membership into the AAL. The Steering Committee wholeheartedly concurred with their requests. Their applications for membership will be discussed at the May 2015 General Assembly meeting and, if there are no objections, voted on at the September 2015 General Assembly meeting. Finally, the Committee addressed concerns raised regarding the merit process and the proposed elimination of the Librarian annual report.

      Ongoing issues for the Steering Committee include:
      Electronic voting for AAL elections. The Nominations and Elections committee did not have the opportunity to explore this any further this year. 
      Ensuring that the PARA process is in agreement with changes agreed to in the latest TAUP contract
      Establishing a means for storing archives of the organization and to efficiently transmit information from one committee to the next
      Emeritus status. The Dean has made several inquiries, but has not received any response from Temple’s administration.

      General Assembly Meetings
      The General Assembly met 5 times, in September, November, January, March, and May. In November, Caitlin Shanley spoke about the ACRL Assessment in Action program, which the Libraries are participating in. Also at that meeting, Kristina De Voe and Fred Rowland led a discussion on the direction of the Libraries following concerns raised at the Faculty Senate meeting. This discussion resulted in a separate meeting being held on December 9, 2014 to allow members of the AAL to continue an open discussion with the Dean about the future of the Libraries both in terms of the physical building and the Dean’s vision of what a 21st century library should be.

      Following the departure of David Murray, a special election was held as part of the regular May elections to elect a chair for next year’s Committee. The person elected to this position will serve one year as chair.

   8. Nomination and Election Committee (J. Sipes)
      The Nominations and Elections Committee met once in March and the annual election was the only business.
6. Election of Officers (J. Sipes)
   No nominations from the floor.

   Election results as follow:
   Steering Committee Chair: Fred Rowland
   Steering Committee Vice Chair/Chair Elect: Kristina DeVoe
   Steering Committee Member at Large: Matt Ducmanas
   Representative Faculty Senate: Katy Rawdon
   Continuing Education Committee (2 year): Rebecca Lloyd
   Continuing Education Committee (1 year): Doreva Belfiore
   Nominations & Elections Committee: Erin Finnerty
   Selection & Appointment Committee: Justin Hill and Jackie Sipes
   Promotion and Regular Appointment Committee: Andrea Goldstein and Molly Larkin

7. Pet photos 
   The Assembly generally agreed that everyone’s pet photos were adorable.
8. Old Business
   None
9. New Business/Announcements
   Matt Ducmanas announced that the Staff Recognition Award nominations are due by May 29, 2015.
10. Adjournment

1. Approval of the minutes (Janz)
   One typo noted. Minutes approved with changes.
2. Remarks/Open Discussion with the dean (J. Lucia)
   Dean Lucia announced that the Teaching & Learning Center will not be in the new library as originally planned. In its place will be the Math Science Resource Center (MSRC) in its entirety. The idea behind this is to make the new library a “learning commons” which will be largely student focused. Finalization of the MSRC’s space has not yet been finalized, but it will likely operate as it operates in its current location in 1810 Liacouras Walk. Lucia acknowledged the disappointment at not having the faculty space originally planned, but expressed optimism about working with the MSRC.

   In addition to looking at the MSRC spaces, they have begun to look at the furniture for the new library.

   Lucia is also looking at the documents that resulted from last year’s Strategic Guidance activities. He created what will be a standing group to work with departments to move towards goals identified by those activities. Steven Bell and Nancy Turner are co-chairs of the group. Three library employees will rotate onto the group. Currently Leanne Finnigan, Kate Lynch, and Aaron Javsicas.

   The Libraries are in a cycle of creating new positions. The Executive Committee is moving through the new positions to evaluate which are priorities and think about next steps. Currently, we are looking for a Collections Analyst, Instructional Designer, Web and Graphics Designer, Digital Libraries Applications Developer, Project Archivist, Assistant Editor of the Press, a writer/editor, an RIS librarian to fill David Murray’s position, two diversity fellowship residents, a biomedical & research services librarian, and someone to work in the Digital Scholarship Center.

   The funds for these positions are coming from unallocated funds for vacant positions that have existed for some time. Some meeting attendees expressed concern that filling those vacant positions is in contrast to developing collections, as those funds had been floating the collections budget.

3. Merit Process Concerns and Discussion (K. De Voe) This year 15 people applied for merit. The Merit Committee received a recommendation from the Libraries’ Assistant Director for Administration to more evenly distribute the merit points because they felt too many had been recommended as Outstanding (rankings are Highest, Outstanding, Deserving, and Not Recommended). The Merit Committee does not feel that even distribution would fairly reflect the levels of achievement by applicants and would prefer to continue evaluating applications individually instead of in relation to each other. Concern about the amount of funds available for distribution was also expressed.. Some felt that it doesn’t matter what the funds are as they are divided by percentage anyway. The next Merit Committee will take this up this issue.

   The Merit Committee also expressed concerns that the final decisions were handled by a human resources professional rather than by the Dean of Libraries or other library professional. Dean Lucia said he been involved in the process to review the Merit applications and the Committee’s recommendations.

4. By-Law Amendments, Proposals and Discussion
   1. AAL General Assembly Membership and Attendees (D. Murray/M. Larkin) Recent discussions between the Academic Assembly of Librarians and Dean Lucia highlighted the circumstances of the growing number of Temple Library employees who are hired in professional positions, but do not hold traditional librarian positions. Although these professionals hold credentials similar to those of professional librarians, the current bylaws of the AAL exclude them from simply attending the General Assembly meetings unless they petition for membership. The proposed changes to the bylaws, indicated below, would allow these individuals to attend the regular Assembly meetings so that they may engage in the flow of information and participate in conversations that directly affect the Libraries on a professional level. Current language:

      II. Membership
      All full-time professional librarians of the Temple University Libraries or covered by the TAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be voting members. Other librarians serving Temple University who have advanced degrees in librarianship are invited to attend but may not vote or serve on committees.

      Proposed language (changes in red):

      All full time professional librarians of the Temple University Libraries or covered by the TAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be voting members. Other librarians serving Temple University who have advanced degrees in librarianship, as well as non-librarian professionals with advanced degrees whose positions are funded by Temple University Libraries, are invited to attend the General Assembly meetings as guests at the discretion of the AAL Steering Committee but may not vote or serve on committees.

      Concerns were raised about people without advanced degrees being excluded from the AAL. Members of the Steering Committee and others noted that AAL General Assembly meetings do not have the same purpose of All Staff meetings, where staff without advanced degrees can contribute to conversations about the library. The AAL is supposed to resemble a collegiate assembly and our composition affects our relationship with the Faculty Senate.

      The changes to the bylaws will be voted on at the May 2015 AAL General Assembly.

   2. Continuing Education Committee Composition (J. Hurtado) The Continuing Education Committee had discussed in the February Steering Committee meeting that they’d like to change the wording on the website about their composition to reflect current practices. Because the wording is official language of the AAL, the changes must be approved by the Assembly. Currently, the wording reads:

      III. Structure
      …
      B) Standing Committees.
      …
      7. The Continuing Education Committee shall consist of three librarians and one support staff member nominated by the Dean of the Libraries. Librarians will be elected at the regular meeting of the Academic Assembly in May to serve for one year, except the person who receives the highest number of votes will serve two years.

      Recommended language (changes in red):

      7. The Continuing Education Committee shall consist of three librarians, one library staff member nominated by the Dean of the Libraries, and the Assistant Director for Administration. Librarians will be elected at the regular meeting of Academic Assembly in May to serve for one year, except the person who receives the highest number of votes will serve two years. The Assistant Director for Administration shall be an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Committee.

      The Continuing Education Committee would like to add a library staff member to their composition to broaden the Committee’s scope. These changes will be voted on at the May AAL General Assembly Meeting.

5. Old Business
   None
6. New Business
   None

1. Approval of the minutes (Janz)
   Minutes from November 2014 meeting scrutinized and approved with changes.
2. New Staff Introductions (Darby & Sly)
   1. Matthew “Matt” Ducmanas is the new special collections cataloger in Cataloging & Metadata Services. Matt has been working at Temple Libraries as part-time cataloger of the McGlinn Theater Collection.  He has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Ohio State University and his MSLIS from Drexel. While he was working here, he also served as a librarian at the Moore College of Art & Design. He also has experience at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the Free Library of Philadelphia. He has no pets, but has been nurturing the same spider plant since the third grade.
   2. Kimberly “Kim” Tully is the new curator of rare books in the SCRC. Kim was previously at Miami University in Oxford, OH, where she was Curator of Special Collections.  Her BA is from UPenn, and she holds an MLIS from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and an MA in History from the University of Notre Dame. She is interested in opera and Bollywood.
3. Remarks/Open Discussion with the dean (J. Lucia)
   Another story about the new library will be appearing in the Inquirer on January 24th. The article will focus on the exterior of the building and be written by Inga Saffron. 

   A fund raising plan is being seriously designed. A naming gift could be an endowment for future funding of the library.

   Conversation turned to professional librarianship and staff eligibility for TAUP and AAL. Lucia expressed concern that the various professional staff members who don’t hold a master’s degree in library science are being excluded from conversations at AAL. Some examples given of positions that fit this category were given and included post doc positions, potential scholarly communications position, digital library initiatives positions, and potential CLIR fellow positions. 

   Through the course of the discussion some official definitions were brought up. The definition of “librarian” from the TAUP bargaining agreement is: “All full-time professional librarians functioning primarily as librarians, on the Paley Library budget or in a College or School included in the bargaining unit.” 

   Additionally, the AAL bylaws regarding membership were read: “All full-time professional librarians of the Temple University Libraries or covered by the TAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be voting members. Other librarians serving Temple University who have advanced degrees in librarianship are invited to attend but may not vote or serve on committees. Any interested full-time staff member of the Temple University Libraries who is considered to have academic qualifications comparable to a librarian may be voted into membership.” 

   It was noted that non-TAUP librarians, such a department heads and HSL and Law librarians and are represented in AAL and they and support staff are represented on committees.

   A question was raised about whether the Libraries or the University could provide assistance for staff who would like to pursue an MLS or otherwise continue their LIS education in programs outside of Temple. This was attempted in the past as a partnership with Drexel, but Drexel was not very cooperative about it. Some people expressed concern about how this type of thing would be defined as a benefit and how it would be determined what kinds of classes would be acceptable.

   The conversation returned to the issue of getting more ideas from more people to official bodies. Some expressed that having a group of professional librarians is a good thing and some felt that the All Staff meetings were sufficient opportunities to bring ideas from other staff to the organization. Others felt that the All Staff meetings are too big to have a consequential conversation. A suggestion of having another group for more broadly defined professional staff was given but there were concerns about having too many official groups. The Assembly was reminded that the AAL bylaws state that any full time staff with professional credentials can attend AAL meetings and the Assembly can vote new members in. Revised wording of membership to AAL could be written and voted on in upcoming meetings.

4. Old Business
   None
5. New Business
   None

ACADEMIC ASSEMBLY OF LIBRARIANS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2014
2:00PM
Paley Library, Lecture Hall
MINUTES

Attending: Jenifer Baldwin, Doreva Belfiore, Brian Boling, Jim Bongiovanni, Mark Darby, Carla Davis Cunningham, Krisitina De Voe, Erin Finnerty, Leanne Finnigan, Andrea Goldstein, Ann Harlow, Josue Hurtado, Margaret Janz  (recording), Noa Kaumeheiua, Delphine Khanna, Molly Larkin (chair), Jonathan LeBrenton, Rick Lezenby, Joe Lucia, Jill Luedke, David Murray (vice-chair), Katy Rawdon, Fred Rowland, Brian Scholar, Adam Shambaugh, Caitlin Shanley, Margery Sly, Gretchen Sneff, Nancy Turner.

1.     Approval of the minutes

Minutes from May and September 2014 meetings approved.

2.     Report by the dean (J. Lucia)

Dean Joe Lucia deferred his report in order to move to the next agenda item regarding concerns about the future of the library.

3.     Library Planning: Hopes and Concerns (K. De Voe)

This agenda item was added after Fred Rowland and Kristina De Voe attended a recent Faculty Senate meeting. The subject of the new library was brought up by faculty who had concerns about the book bot, open spaces, and whether or not the new library represented students’ preferences. De Voe and Rowland felt that these issues as well as concerns being discussed in library departmental meetings should be addressed in this forum. De Voe then directed those in attendance to begin the discussion with any questions they had.

Discussion began with questions relating to some resources that Lucia had sent to ADC that Jenifer Baldwin had forwarded to the RIS department[1]. Some felt that the materials suggested a criticism of RIS librarian activities such as staffing the reference desk and doing instruction.

Lucia said he only meant for the article to promote conversation about the evolving role of liaison librarians. He wants to know how to be more effective in helping undergraduates to succeed, something that is also important to TU’s president. He noted, however, that the number of people being served at one time has to be taken into account. He questioned the role of the reference desk and what things could be done to liberate more time for RIS librarians.

Baldwin noted that within RIS that question had been raised and RIS librarian time at the desk was cut in half and now their consultation times had increased greatly. David Murray noted that no amount of training can prepare support staff to handle all reference questions and warned that if service quality decreased then patrons would no longer see the value in seeking help from staff at the library.

Lucia questioned how many questions were too deep for support staff and noted that perhaps losing contact with those small number of patrons was worth it if more students could be helped elsewhere. He pointed out that students will be missed no matter what and questioned other ways they might be caught.

Baldwin agreed that another path to supporting patrons could be beneficial, but asked what that path might be.

Nancy Turner suggested user testing on the website to determine if that’s another path to service. She also wanted to point out that technical services people consider themselves public facing and that their work has evolved as well. She brought up another document Lucia had sent from OCLC.[2] Lucia briefly described the OCLC document about the changing ecosystem of how research is produced and how libraries fit with these new models then returned to Baldwin’s question.

Lucia feels that the Libraries are doing a good job in instructional efforts, but questioned if we are using enough technology and deploying all the tools necessary to go beyond foundational courses. He feels there is a higher level we’re not reaching and wants to know how we could reach it and if it would all be in person.

Concern was expressed about the idea that tools could replace face to face teaching and reference. Lucia questioned the scalability of reaching all departments on the same level that some RIS librarians reach any one of their departments, noting the large time investment that is compounded by how many things a librarian may want to do.

Some RIS librarians commented that what they want to be doing is continuing their efforts in instruction.

Lucia said he didn’t think great instructors should stop being instructors, but those who want to explore other roles should be supported. He feels people should be doing what they are strongest at.

Relief at hearing RIS librarians would not be turned into technologists was expressed; within the department there had been a sense that their roles were underappreciated and they are happy to hear this is not the case.

Lucia stressed that he doesn’t think everyone needs to become technologists, but he does feel that TUL need to push the envelope in many areas, which is a separate issue. He acknowledged the importance of this conversation and continuing it.

4.     Update on the TAUP Contract/PARA Process (F. Rowland)

Fred Rowland, David Murray, and TAUP president Art Hochner negotiated with Richie Holland, Joe Lucia, and Sharon Boyle. Several things have changed with this contract. First, instead of four separate 1-year contracts and a 2-year contract, there will be three 2-year contracts for new librarians. Because of this, we’ll have to be careful to keep new hires on track with documentation. There will no longer be any springtime contract renewals. The PARA Committee is trying to change things so that promotion and contract renewal will be applied for at the same time.

Another change to the TAUP contract is that the Provost will have less time and the Dean of Libraries will have more time to review contract renewals.

The 35 hour work week wording has been removed from contract. TAUP librarians are exempt employees but the limit on time in the library is still 35 hours a week.

No changes were made to the STO policy.

Previously, temporary employees could be hired with grant or foundation funding. Now temporary or project employees can be hired so long as the number of these employees are not more than 20% of regular appointment librarians staff. 60% of that 20% can do the same work as TAUP librarians.

No parental leave was granted with the new contract. No one is pleased by this, but if anyone wants to express concerns, Rowland encourages them to contact him. He noted that flextime can be used creatively for people with new babies, although this is not as preferable as actual parental leave.

5.     ACRL Assessment in Action Activities (C. Shanley)

TU Libraries is participating in the ACRL Assessment in Action program. The idea is to help communicate the value of libraries. It’s one of ACRL’s professional development programs. Group includes Caitlin Shanley, Ken Finkle, Nancy Turner, Jenifer Baldwin, and Gina Calzaferri. The project runs from May 2014 to June 2015. They will be presenting a poster at ALA’s Annual Conference about it. So far this program is free and the participants are varied. 70 participating libraries are from the USA and a few are from Canada. It promotes cross campus partnerships and gets the Libraries involved in campus assessment projects. Shanley will be teaching a class for Ken Finkle and will get the students’ papers to assess information literacy learning demonstrated in them based on a rubric Shanley is designing.

Jenifer Baldwin asked how the group is addressing the fact that the students in Finkle’s class will be doing the same assignment three times. Shaley said that according to Finkle, there has always been great improvement between the students’ first and second papers, but no improvement on the third.

Nancy Turner commented that the project has been great for bringing awareness on a campus level of assessment happening in the libraries.

6.     Old Business
None
7.     New Business

Erin Finnerty asked if the AAL Steering Committee can set up a special meeting to continue the conversation with Joe Lucia. Jill Luedke also felt that continuing the conversation would be very important, especially since it seemed there had been a lot of miscommunication. Molly Larkin had looked into this and found that the Steering Committee could set up a special meeting and she will be looking into setting one up before the next scheduled General Assembly meeting.

Adjournment at 2:58pm.

ACADEMIC ASSEMBLY OF LIBRARIANS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

2:00PM

Paley Library, Lecture Hall

MINUTES

Attending: Doreva Belfiore, Aslaku Berhanu, Brian Boling, Jim Bongiovanni, Mark Darby, Kristina De Voe, Erin Finnerty (recorder), Leanne Finnigan, Justin Hill, Josue Hurtado, Latanya Jenkins, Noa Kaumeheiua, Molly Larkin (Chair), Jonathan LeBreton, Rick Lezenby, Joe Lucia, Jill Luedke, Katy Rawdon, Caitlin Shanley, Matt Shoemaker, Margery Sly, Gretchen Sneff, Nancy Turner.

Meeting called to order at 2:07pm.

1.      Approval of Minutes (M. Larkin)

Minutes from last meeting are not yet available.  Molly Larkin will double check on status, and email once available.

2.      Remarks by the Dean of Libraries (J. Lucia)

A new sound system has been installed in the Lecture Hall.  This will provide additional options for different types of presentations.

The Temple University President will be meeting with all deans in this academic year.  Dean Joseph Lucia has an appointment for 9/19/2014.  They will possibly discuss Kardon and take a tour.  Dean Lucia has asked ADC for input on potential topics/issues to share with the President.  They may also take tour of Paley Library, but is more likely that this visit will be used as a chance to share issues, concerns and challenges.  Dean Lucia invited AAL members to email any contributions or thoughts to be shared with the President on his visit.

In mid-August, Dean Lucia received some cost and schematic design information from Snohetta in regard to the new library. This information covered structural systems, flooring, layouts, material options, and other topics  The week of September 15 there will be a next phase of budget review to determine how close to the original financial target the provided plans are.  In Spring 2014, Dean Lucia met with Snohetta’s architects and the Temple University President and Provost to share the current state of the design.  At that time, the main concern was that the building structure not look like an oddity on Temple’s campus.  There will be one more round of presentations to President Theobald, then the Trustees, and then the Board for final authorizations and administrative approval in order to move forward.

Additionally, further refinements are being made on the procurement of the Automatic Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) since it has such a large impact on the shape of the final structure. Once the ASRS and its funding source are finalized, the provided building schematics will be more reliable, and Dean Lucia can gather further staff input on the available plans.  They will likely be looking at additional ASRS drawings and information in mid- to late September 2014.

Dean Lucia informed the AAL that a plan has been proposed for layout of the Digital Scholarship Center (DSC).  The project is in the Capital Expenditure approval process now.  Dean Lucia is hoping that work will begin in October 2014, and take around 3 months to complete.  The DSC group will start meeting again next week and will begin discussing relevant, potential new hires.

Dean Lucia reported that Jonathan LeBreton is heading a group to determine a future Temple University Libraries ILS/library system to replace III Millennium. Dean Lucia outlined the ideal timeline as: one study year, one planning year, and then system migration over the following Summer.  Ultimately, Dean Lucia would like for system migration to occur early enough to leave one year to work with the new ILS before we move to the new building.

The search for a new Health Sciences Library Director is starting.  Stephen Bell is the committee chair.

            Mary Rose Muccie will be running a University Press staff retreat on Thursday, 9/11/14. 

Dean Lucia will be meeting with the new Vice President of Institutional Advancement, James Dicker, to discuss fundraising opportunities for the new library.  They will discuss potential opportunities for both large (example: reading room) and small gifts (example: study areas).   Dean Lucia is hopeful that TUL will be able to begin soliciting alumni gifts by Spring 2015.

Dean Lucia is working on compiling a spreadsheet of results from Strategic Planning exercises and will circulate these to the staff once completed.  As a result, he is also focusing on unmet staffing needs and is interested in additional, global analysis of how we will meet changing priorities in coming years.  This analysis will likely take a couple of years to fully implement. 

During the question and answer period of Dean’s Lucia’s report, Jill Luedke, on behalf of Fred Rowland, asked about a potential decrease in the amount of purchased print books.  Mr. Rowland had noticed a 22% decrease in amount of print books that have come in over the past year and was curious if this is a trend that will continue.  Dean Lucia said that Brian Schoolar would need to weigh in on such perceived patterns, as it may just be an anomaly.  Jonathan LeBreton said that there was an 11% budget cut to the base TUL budget over 2 years ago, leaving less money for everything.  Print books have received less of the budget, partially to sustain online materials, but also because more book titles are switching to electronic.  Mr. LeBreton felt that 22% sounded high, but did project a continued decrease in print book purchasing.

Ms. Luedke asked if the approvals are also decreasing. Mr. LeBreton stated that some of the approval shipments retracted over last year, but that wasn’t necessarily instigated by our instruction to do so.  Mark Darby then mentioned that the Coutts approval plan may include holding off on purchasing print approvals to see what will be available in electronic format. This could mean about 30% fewer things than are coming through approval on first shipment.  Mr. Darby noted that individual ebooks cost more money than print books, and cataloging processed more titles (including those from MyiLibrary) this past year.  Also, electronic books are paid from different funds than print books.  He mentioned being surprised when he saw how much came through cataloging despite the perception that less is being purchased.

Mr. LeBreton stated that in terms of the budget, there was a 10% restriction for those types of materials, and that the remainder of the perceived 22% drop is likely made up by the replacement of or diversion to electronic.  Dean Lucia stated that the new book count annually is about 15,000 acquired, without gifts.  Mr. Darby mentioned that there was a very large backlog of gift books.

Jill Luedke asked if 2019 was still projected to be the first functional year of the new library. Dean Lucia stated there is some ‘softness’ around that date.  The current project timeline allows for a 30 month build phase, and about three months to move in.  There might be a delay in the Barton building cleanout and take down.  Some of the timeline hinges on the completion of the new SERC building and the time it will take to clear out Barton and demolish it.  Dean Lucia mentioned that if we are delayed too long before moving to the new building (over the Summer), that it could be pushed back as much as a semester.  Dean Lucia projected that the whole project may take a year longer than original expected

3.       Old Business

None.

4.       New Business / Announcements

None.

Adjournment at 2:46pm.