Minutes of the Fall General Meeting

MAUT LIBRARIANS’ SECTION MINUTES OF THE FALL GENERAL MEETING February 3, 2012, 12:00 - 2:00 p.m. Burnside Hall, Room 306

Full Members Present: Jill Boruff, Heather Cai, Robin Canuel, Maryvon Côté, Deanna Cowan, Valerie Fortin, Jennifer Garland, Genevieve Gore, Lise Hackett, Katherine Hanz, Joan Hobbins, Ann Marie Holland, Juanita Jara de Sumar, Julie Jones, Nevenka Koscevic, Maya Kucij, Cathy Martin, Tara Mawhinney, Andrea Miller-Nesbitt, Susan Murray, Christine Oliver, Sharon Rankin, Marc Richard, Anais Salamon, Sonia Smith, Sean Swanick, Jennifer Zhao, Macy Zheng

Retired Members Present: John Hobbins, Kendall Wallis

Guests Present: John Galaty (MAUT President), Honore Kerwin-Borrelli (MAUT Administrative Officer) (2 guests)

Welcome and call to order: M. Richard called the meeting to order and welcomed all members and invited guests. He noted that the meeting is recorded for the purpose of producing the minutes, and reminded everyone to sign the attendance sheet by the end of the meeting. M. Richard welcomed the guests. Alvin Shrier (MAUT President Elect) was unable to attend this meeting and sent his regrets. 1. Approval of agenda

The motion for the adoption of the agenda was approved by Joan Hobbins and moved by Maryvon Côté. The only issue was the correction of a typo in the previous MAUT-LS meeting date in the agenda, and the motion was carried.

2. Approval of minutes of Spring General Meeting held on May 24, 2011

The motion for the adoption of the minutes was moved by Joan Hobbins and seconded by Susan Murray. No discussion or changes. The vote was carried.

3. Business arising

All the points of Business Arising from the previous minutes show up in the agenda items of the day. The one exception: On the bottom of page 2 of the Spring 2011 minutes, there was some discussion about whether retired librarians should be members of Library Council (they currently are not). This is a question Council itself should debate and decide (Council can recommend changes to its terms of reference). At the last Senate meeting, the Principal made an announcement (which is in the report of the Steering Committee) to have a working group review the functions and structure of Faculty Councils. M. Richard asked her if members of the University would be able to provide input. Provost Masi responded yes. However, there were not yet any Terms of Reference for the Committee. This working group would be a good place to direct comments related to the issue of retired faculty. J. Galaty indicated that he is a member of this working group and that comments can be directed to him. J. Galaty mentioned that background work was done on the subject of faculty councils when the Library Council was set up, explicitly with the idea that it could become a paradigm case. John Hobbins asked if council meetings were open to observers (including library assistants). He mentioned that Law retirees are eligible to observe the open sessions in the Faculty of Law. M. Richard mentioned that the subject of retirees had never been addressed and that the issue of faculty council reform should be announced to the whole community, not just to MAUT members. Joan Hobbins mentioned that the MAUT Collegiality Meeting would also be talking about councils.

No other issues were raised under Business Arising.

4. Electronic Nominations and Voting for MAUT-LS Positions

Traditionally, nominations were done with paper forms, but due to the MUNACA strike the call for nominations and the vote last fall for the position of Secretary-Treasurer were carried out electronically. The method was considered faster and more convenient. M. Richard asked if this could become the normal procedure. No objections were made.

5. Reports a. Chair

The focus was on one subject: The analysis of where things appear to be at the moment with the list of the 28 issues. Input is being requested from the MAUT-LS membership in February on what solutions should be put into place. In December, the Chair and Past Chair met with Dean Cook for their monthly meeting (for the second half of the term, the Chair and Chair Elect will meet monthly with Dean Cook). Dean Cook asked what was left in terms of issues. Merit still appears to be a significant issue. The next report to CAUT must be filed by the end of March, in anticipation of the CAUT Council meeting in April. We need a clear idea of the concrete solutions that would be considered resolutions by librarians. If we do not get input, it would be up to the MAUT-LS Executive to determine how the outstanding issues can be resolved. Members were asked to send/convey input to MAUT-LS Executive or Professional Issues Committee (PIC) members.

There were no questions or comments.

John Galaty commented that the decision to call upon CAUT had been an extraordinary one which highlighted the lack of recourse in the University which may have existed at the time. He remarked that the situation in the Library is now quite different. He asked whether the question to consider should be whether there are now mechanisms in place to air issues. He expressed the view that librarians do have such structures in place now, and he remarked that the University has been embarrassed by the involvement of CAUT.

M. Richard responded that the constructive power of embarrasment should not be underestimated. He stated his belief that if McGill librarians had not gone to CAUT, they would be in a far worse position today than is presently the case. The purpose of this step was not to have McGill censured; the objective was to achieve a resolution to our issues. Jim Turk, the Executive Director of CAUT, has said that the possibility of censure will remain on the books until the librarians are satisfied that their issues had been resolved. Simply having mechanisms in place is not adequate: these mechanisms may generate solutions, but they are not a solution in and of themselves. For example: We have had a Library Council in place for a year, but there are still a large number of problems that have not been solved. It has been useful in addressing the Reappointment Guidelines, but it has not been enough. The Library Council has not been entirely effective, in part because librarians have not made enough use of it: We must take collective responsibility for making the Library Council work. Part of the issue-resolution process may involve transferring some issues from the CAUT process to Library Council. One underlying problem is that the collegial tradition in the Library has been under attack for a number of years. The climate has improved under Dean Cook: People slowly seem to be expressing themselves more at the Library Council meetings. However, it will still take some practice before the Library Council achieves full effectiveness.

It was commented from the floor that we need to see more problems solved first.

M. Richard noted that MAUT-LS needs input on how to resolve problems.

It was also remarked that it is too difficult to complain about the merit process in a public forum. M. Richard noted that this is exactly the kind of situation in which MAUT-LS can transmit sensitive information on behalf of its membership.

Another comment was made regarding how the only change in the Administration has been at the top.

M. Richard mentioned that librarians are free to bring up subjects for possible discussion at Library Council by contacting the Secretary, currently Vincci Lui.

J. Galaty suggested putting together a committee in which the Dean would be an ex officio member and that different sentiments could be aired in this committee.

M. Richard mentioned that, in the Executive's April 2011 and January 2012 updates on the status of our 28 issues, merit appears to be the most problematic subject. One of the conceptual concerns with the merit allocation process is the retroactive change to how much weight is attributed to the three areas of academic duties. Another conceptual problem is that one of the Associate Directors who is evaluating the performance of tenure-track librarians for merit is not a tenure-track librarian. b. Secretary-Treasurer

G. Gore presented the budget and noted that the main expenditures were related to the use of SurveyMonkey over a four-month period, in addition to the usual catering expenses.

The MAUT-LS Award was briefly discussed (the award is $300). M. Richard asked if anyone recalled how the Award has been funded in the past given the low interest yield on the endowment. We presume that the endowment fund had been supplemented with money from other accounts when necessary to make up the missing amount for the award. J. Galaty suggested lowering the amount of the award, but Joan Hobbins noted that the award is not given out frequently enough for this to be a concern.

$25 MAUT-LS dues are collected once a year in the fall. If we wanted to raise funds through membership, we would have to pass a motion to raise the dues. We would need a notice of motion to increase it. It was suggested that the membership dues could be raised, in part to give PIC its own funding for its activities.

It was suggested that MAUT-LS could use LimeSurvey instead of SurveyMonkey without a fee: All that is required is asking ICS to create a new survey. This suggestion was well received. c. Professional Issues Committee (PIC)

S. Swanick discussed PIC activities including the creation of a document concerning leaves that they hope to submit to Dean Cook for discussion at Library Council. During the MUNACA strike, PIC members established a hardship fund for MUNACA library staff. PIC held two meetings: one informal librarians’ meeting concerning the strike (minutes were taken and submitted to the Dean for feedback), and a second event involving an ethics discussion on November 3, 2011 led by Prof. Joan Bartlett. The members of PIC, and a number of other librarians, also organized visits to the MUNACA picket lines and gave out breakfast to striking MUNACA members across campus. These were thought to have been well received.

M. Richard mentioned that he has been very impressed with the enthusiasm and energy shown by PIC since our last meeting in May 2011. M. Richard noted that the Executive has been using PIC as an internal consultative body and as an additional communications channel with the membership, and thanked the members of PIC for their initiative. d. Academic Salary

J. Hobbins mentioned that we do not have a member on this Committee any longer, but MAUT sends out messages about academic salary. Joan Hobbins noted that the across-the-board increase of 1.2% was an accomplished feat. J. Galaty mentioned that the initial across-the-board offered was 1% and that MAUT had fought for the provincial standard. MAUT also pushed for 2.3% for the merit exercise. e. Senate

M. Richard asked if there were any follow-up questions to the Senate reports that are sent out by the librarian Senators once a month. J. Galaty noted that the reports, which are distributed to a wider audience via the MAUT listserv, are appreciated by everyone in the University. Joan Hobbins noted that Marc drafts these Senate notes, which are then reviewed by the other two librarian Senators.

M. Richard also mentioned that at some time in the spring there would be a call for nominations for Senate vacancies. Two librarian seats would be coming up for reappointment or nomination, those of Marc Richard and Joan Hobbins. The call for nominations usually goes out in March or April. Please consider this opportunity if you are looking for a University-level service credit.

A question was asked about streaming Senate meetings. Joan Hobbins mentioned that there has been interest and that this approach is being considered. f. Senate Committee on Libraries

M. Richard read B. McMillan’s report, which was as follows:

The Senate Committee on Libraries met twice last term, on November 22nd at the Schulich Science and Engineering Library and on December 14th in the Rare Book and Special Collections Department of the Humanities and Social Sciences Library. Chair Natalie Cooke has expressed a desire to convene meetings in different libraries to introduce the committee members to various corners of McGill's Library network they may not know. This initiative seems part and parcel with her wish to make the Senate Committee on Libraries a venue for communication between the Library and McGill's other faculties. Two other initiatives in this vein are (1) the circulation of a document compiling recent media coverage of the McGill Library before every meeting and (2) time on the agenda reserved for feedback brought by the various non-library-staff members from their colleagues. One question raised under this agenda item at the November meeting was how to educate graduate students preparing theses and dissertations on potential copyright and intellectual property rights issues given the online environment of eScholarship. The question was subsequently raised in Senate. One possible solution is the inclusion of some discussion in the graduate workshop series, MyResearch. Undergraduate information literacy was also a concern raised in November's meeting. At the following meeting Prof. Cooke noted her pleasure at seeing the MyArtsResearch workshops for undergraduate students announced for the Winter 2012 term. The bulk of each meeting was dedicated to the Report of the Dean of Libraries. In both the November and December meetings much time was devoted to the strike, its effect on the Library, and (in December) its aftermath. Other topics broached in November included the Dean's Cabinet Strategic Planning retreat, EZProxy, the ProQuest database suite acquisition, Hathi Trust, and the Library's various renovation projects. December's report touched on completed renovations (the McTavish Street access to McLennan), the ongoing planning for the McLennan/Redpath complex renovations and plans to call for student input (through official student bodies such as the SSMU and PGSS and other less formal polling of students), and the issue of space (for both bodies and physical items).

The Senate Committee on Libraries plans to meet on the following dates:

Monday, February 13th, at the Islamic Studies Library Wednesday, April 25th, at a location to be determined

The current composition of the committee is as follows:

Mr. Tom Acker Prof. Andrea Bernasconi Mr. Adam Bouchard Prof. Emily Carson Prof. Martin Chénier Dr. C. Colleen Cook Prof. Nathalie Cooke, (Chair) Prof. H. Patrick Glenn; Prof. Reghan Hill Prof. Gillian Lane-Mercier; Mr. Yonatan Lipsitz Mr. Brian McMillan (sabbatical leave replacement for Sara Holder) Ms. Gwendolyn Owens (Secretary) Prof. Kenneth Regan Ms. Natalie Waters Ms. Joyce Whiting If you have any questions, please contact B. McMillan directly. g. Nominating Committee

M. Zheng reported that nominations for Secretary-Treasurer were made in the fall and thanked K. Hanz and G. Gore for accepting nomination. She thanked S. Rankin for preparing the electronic election process. The elections were done electronically and that seemed to be successful both at reducing paper waste and in terms of time efficiency. She noted that G. Gore had been elected, and she also thanked S. Smith for her past contribution as Secretary-Treasurer.

The members of the Nominating Committee are Joan Hobbins, Susan Murray, and Macy Zheng (Chair). 7. New Business/Other Business

M. Richard asked if the members had any other items of business to bring forward. None were raised. The members then turned back to the list of 28 issues, for which a supplementary block of discussion time had been reserved in the agenda.

6. Discussion of outstanding issues (follow-up to item 5.a.ii above)

A question was asked regarding the merit issue: Could a statement or position paper on what had happened in the past be made so that we could all be up to date, and could the membership know what was being discussed with the Dean on behalf of MAUT-LS members?

M. Richard mentioned that the documents which can be consulted are not CAUT documents, because the report of the CAUT Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee into the Situation of Academic Librarians remains confidential. However, there are three documents worth consulting for background detail:

1. The January 2012 analysis which M. Richard sent out to members;

2. The April 2011 report sent to CAUT, available on MAUT-LS website, which included a five-page analysis of the merit issue;

3. In the "Merit and Status" section of the MAUT-LS website, there is a report that was written by PIC in 2006 as well as auxiliary documents (PDFs) describing how the merit process used to work and how it existed in 2004. At that time, that merit process was considered satisfactory. In 2005, the merit process changed under the new Director of Libraries, and the 2006 document analyses the differences.

M. Richard mentioned that no specific solutions have been proposed to the Dean yet because the Executive is awaiting input from members. The Dean’s current position is that merit is an administrative process and decision, and that any model will involve some dissatisfaction. M. Richard, however, noted that it should at least be a process that satisfies most people.

John Hobbins mentioned that it was an administrative process even before 2005 but that it was very transparent and that MAUT-LS had an observer to make sure the rules were being followed. M. Richard noted that the MAUT observer was bound by rules of confidentiality and that the person’s role was to contribute to the discussion but primarily to appear before the MAUT-LS meeting and give their assessment about whether they felt the process had been fair. Under that process, M. Richard also noted that Director of Libraries would announce the distribution of merit allocation, which Dean Cook has done.

Another conceptual problem with the current merit process has to do with merit appeals. It is a generally accepted principle at McGill that the same individual cannot be involved in two stages of the same process, e.g., with grievances. The problem during the 2010 review process was that the recommendations were made to the Dean by the Associate Directors, and the Dean then accepted/did not accept/accepted with slight modifications those recommendations. For those who decided to appeal their merit awards (the process covered 2010, during which time Dean Cook was not at McGill), the appeals went to Diane Koen, the Interim Director of Libraries in 2010, who had also been on the Merit Committee, and thus became involved in two stages of the process. However, this year, the process would be for 2011, and Dean Cook was here. If merit awards involved a final decision by Dean Cook and appeals went to her as well, she would also be involved in two stages of the process. M. Richard noted that the Executive needs to know if this is an issue that concerns people.

John Hobbins noted, regarding merit, that one of the huge advantages of the earlier process (pre- 2005) was that staff could go to their supervisor and ask how they could improve, and their supervisors could guide them. However, post-2005, as a manager he had no clue how to advise staff. It was mentioned that Dean Cook had said that it should be a coaching exercise, so there does seem to be potential to improve the process.

J. Galaty noted that the criteria and appeals seemed to be the key issues. He mentioned that the teaching staff have real measurables. In principle, merit should go up and down and should not be a measure of your intrinsic worth. He also suggested, regarding appeals, that MAUT-LS should contact the Dean of Law and the Dean of Religious Studies to see how they deal with the issue of involvement at two stages, since their faculties are faculties without departments. M. Richard commented that the merit award should reflect what staff are doing; however, the criteria and the methodology should be known ahead of time and should not be changed after the completion of the year of work which will be evaluated for merit purposes. He drew a parallel with the course outlines which professors give their students at the start of classes: these outlines specify how much a s student's total mark will be accounted for by each paper and exam, and these percentages cannot be changed retroactively.

Another comment was made regarding the group of comparison changing from your unit to your cohort. Also, the percentages attributed to each category were thought to be unclear. Also noted was how the new CV format does not correspond to the annual report form. M. Richard noted that as he recalled, when Dean Cook introduced the CV format, it was not a requirement. A comment was made that something was lost in the communication because the fact that it was optional was not clearly made. It was suggsted that the CV format should correspond to the annual report form. M. Richard proposed that PIC take up the issue, to which PIC members responded that they had already done so, apparently to no avail. M. Richard agreed that it should be made clear that use of the suggested CV format is not mandatory. Another point was made that if Dean Cook was recommending the format, then there was pressure to follow it.

One last comment was made about how merit was announced to us and how the deadline was too short. Additional warning would be appreciated, e.g., two-week pre-warning. There should be more notice of important meetings as well. M. Richard mentioned that one suggestion to Dean Cook could be a session in the fall to talk about the procedure--not the criteria, as the criteria should be decided before the year in review begins. Joan Hobbins mentioned that the strike also added a level of difficulty to planning, which should be considered. J. Galaty mentioned that the entire chain results in delays and that it is not necessarily the Dean who is responsible for the delays.

Another comment was made that the Merit Committee was changed after the annual performance reports had been written. Also, the reports are reviewed by members of the Merit Committee and then go back to the staff and supervisor, which seems problematic. M. Richard noted that if a rigorous, transparent process were in place, the process would be more resistant to problems.

It was remarked that we should know beforehand what is considered a priority for merit, e.g., participating in the working groups. If we know we are working toward something standard, then we can be judged in a standard way. M. Richard noted that we have to know before the year starts what the criteria are and how the categories will be weighed. A comment was also made regarding whether the Dean should be involved at all in the merit decisions (versus appeals). M. Richard noted that the Associate Directors do not have the authority to make the merit decisions. John Hobbins mentioned that pre-2005 the Committee submitted the report to the Director who signed off on the recommendations. J. Galaty mentioned that in other units the Dean signs off on the recommendations but does not make them.

M. Richard noted that it is probably too late for 2012, but that people have to know the rules for 2013 and that it is not too early to be thinking about them. This year’s process should be used to develop a better process for next year. He also asked that members continue to submit their views to the Executive. We need to be able to tell Dean Cook what is still unsatisfactory. One comment was made about the possible inappropriateness of the merit process for team-based work. M. Richard mentioned that it was an idea worth considering, and that one potential radical solution would be to not be involved in the merit process at all. It was concluded that merit is a very complex problem. We need to advocate more for the various types of work that are done.

8. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn by Maryvon Côté, seconded by Joan Hobbins, and carried.

Respectfully submitted by Genevieve Gore, April 5, 2012.