Minutes of the Spring General Meeting

MAUT LIBRARIANS’ SECTION

MINUTES OF THE SPRING GENERAL MEETING

May 11, 2012, 12:00 - 2:00 p.m.

Burnside Hall, Room 1B 36

Full Members Present:

Robin Canuel, Valerie Fortin, Marilyn Fransisczyn, Genevieve Gore, Jodie Hebert, Joan Hobbins, Juanita Jara de Sumar, Julie Jones, Jessica Lange, Cathy Martin, Valerie Mayman, Andrea Miller-Nesbitt, Susan Murray, Christine Oliver, Marc Richard, Anaïs Salamon, Sonia Smith, Sean Swanick, Jennifer Zhao

Guests Present:

John Galaty (MAUT Past-President), Ken Hastings (MAUT President-Elect), Honore Kerwin-Borrelli (MAUT Administrative Officer), Alvin Shrier (MAUT President) (4 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.

1. Approval of agenda

The motion for the adoption of the agenda was moved by J. Hobbins and seconded by S. Murray. M. Richard stated that 4g. would be covered before 4b. No other changes were made. The motion was carried.

2. Approval of minutes of Fall/Winter General Meeting held on February 3, 2012

The motion for the adoption of the minutes was moved by J. Hebert and seconded by S. Murray. No discussion or changes. The motion was carried.

3. Business arising

M. Richard stated that any business not covered by the Reports could be broached under the agenda item for New business/Other business.

4 Reports

a. Chair (Marc Richard)

Update on Resolution of Issues

M. Richard discussed his two written updates submitted to the MAUT-LS membership via the list: The latest report to CAUT (sent on April 10, 2012) and the email describing proposals on merit and incidental illness (May 3, 2012). Regarding the report to CAUT: Dean Cook sent out four email messages on March 29, 2012 and April 5, 2012, which were drafted in collaboration with MAUT-LS. M. Richard asked that the messages be issued by the Dean’s Office so that they could be considered official statements. M. Richard mentioned that the emails resolved more issues in two weeks than had been resolved in two years.

Dean Cook’s emails outlined various principles which supervisors are expected to apply in their interactions with librarians. If any librarian feels that supervisors are not following these principles, he or she should feel free to discuss the matter confidentially with either Isabelle Roberge or Dean Cook herself. It was also emphasized that Dean Cook would fully support a librarian's decision to see her about such matters. M. Richard noted that, in the discussions he and S. Rankin had with Dean Cook, the Dean made the point that she could not solve problems if she did not know they existed. M. Richard and S. Rankin made the counterpoint to Dean Cook that she had to make it possible for people to bring such problems to her attention or to I. Roberge's attention in a confidential way.

I. Roberge will be giving a talk either at Library Council or at Dean’s Corner to discuss how confidentiality is handled.

J. Galaty asked if confidentiality extended to staff’s discussions with the Dean. M. Richard responded yes. M. Richard also mentioned that Dean Cook is very much aware of the case-by-case basis on which such discussions must be approached and fully realized the need to calibrate her role when people approached her with issues (e.g., depending on whether matters are taken to her only for her information or for follow-up action with supervisors). In some cases, people might also go to I. Roberge with issues and I. Roberge might then take matters up with Dean Cook without supplying normative information about the staff member(s) concerned.

K. Hastings asked if supervisors are members of MAUT-LS. M. Richard responded that only one of the four current Associate Directors is a member.

M. Richard also mentioned that Dean Cook had read the minutes of the last MAUT-LS meeting and was dismayed by the comments made regarding the merit process.

Regarding the merit issue, Dean Cook proposed sending out a three-point message and asked M. Richard if it would be enough. The first point was about the percentage weight given to the three categories of academic duties (80%-10%-10%). The second point was about two subjects: the composition of the Merit Committee and the principle of evaluation of librarians as a group rather than in clusters (though equivalent career stages are used for purposes of comparison). The third point was about distributing merit according to the Academic Salary Policy of the given year (determined by the Committee on Academic Salaries and Compensation). One subject absent from the proposed message was how the merit appeal process works. Dean Cook and M. Richard do not see eye to eye on this issue: Merit appeals are currently being handled by the Associate Directors, but M. Richard feels this is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, it contradicts the text set out by the Academic Personnel Office, which states that representation is to be made to one's Dean. Second, it is inappropriate for the Associate Directors to be handling merit appeals because this creates a situation in which they are involved in two different stages of the same process: they make initial recommendations to the Dean about merit allocation, and they then handle appeals pertaining to their own earlier recommendations. This is contrary to the established McGill practice of avoiding two-level involvement. M. Richard feels that it would be more appropriate for appeals to go to the Dean.

In her discussions with M. Richard, one principle with which the Dean agreed regarding merit concerned the communication of information to librarians about this subject: In December 2012, people will be told what process will be used at the beginning of 2014 to judge work done over the course of 2013. This would be done on a rolling basis.

Incidental illness and medical appointments: This is an issue that ties into how much control members of the academic staff have over the use of their own time. We are paid an annual salary rather than an hourly one; we work more than 9 to 5 (as part of the social contract we have as members of the academic staff); and we understand that if we have a scheduled commitment, we are expected to honour it. By those same principles, however, it is the prerogative of academic staff to decide how use the portions of their time in which they do not have scheduled commitments. The problem is that some administrators seem to feel that librarians need to be tied to their desks from 9 to 5. Librarians understand that they should let people know if they are off sick, but there have been problems around the question of how many hoops they must jump through to provide such notification in order for it to be considered satisfactory by individual administrators. Can it be done by phone? By email? Must it go to the direct supervisor or to a designate other person? Another problematic issue is the question of whether librarians are or are not required to make up time taken for a scheduled incidental medical appointment. M. Richard’s position is that we do not have to do so because we do not have a set schedule, but this issue is not closed: It is still not clear what the resolution will be with the Dean.

J. Hobbins commented that it is not just the academic staff who have to jump through hoops: So do the library assistants. It is not reasonable to expect people to keep calling until they reach an actual person who is allowed to take the message and pass it on.

A question was asked about the use of Present. Does research time have to be entered into Present, and if so, how?

M. Richard responded that the subject of the Present time management software is tricky. One agreement which was reached in the fall of 2010, when the Librarians' Concerns Committee chaired by Lydia White was formulating its recommendations, was that the University would continue to use Present. M. Richard made the point to the Dean that the continued use of Present in and of itself was not the issue; rather, the issue was how complicated the procedures had to be for librarians to provide to their supervisors information pertaining to their absences. M. Richard cited to the Dean the example of an administrator who once called him at home in the middle of a sick day he had already reported to his supervisor, ostensibly to inquire about his health. Dean Cook agreed that the action mentioned in this example was over the top. Dean Cook’s preference for resolving this concern is not to issue guidelines, but rather to issue a statement making the following two points: 1) that if a librarian encounters a problematic situation, he or she should speak to her about it; 2) that interactions between supervisors and supervisees (including communications about incidental illness) should be based on mutual respect. M. Richard made the point to Dean Cook that this would be adequate in a healthy environment, but that we were not there yet and that clearer guidelines were needed as part of the process of creating such an environment. M. Richard stated that discussions of this subject with Dean Cook would continue. Merit and incidental illness are therefore two remaining unresolved issues.

One positive comment from the floor was about the level of trust accorded for research leave by Dean Cook. This was seen as being discordant with the reporting of incidental illness and medical appointments.

At the Spring 2012 CAUT Council meeting, it was decided to defer until November the matter of whether or not CAUT will proceed with a motion of censure against McGill. In the discussions by M. Richard and S. Rankin with Dean Cook, it was agreed to set early September as the target date for the resolution of any issues which remain outstanding, which will leave a two-month safety margin before the next CAUT Council meeting.

By-Law Amendments

Members were sent by email the text of six proposed amendments to the By-law Governing the Librarians' Section. Five of the amendments are of a housekeeping nature. The remaining amendment modifies some of the terms under which the Professional Issues Committee (PIC) operates. PIC will now have seven elected members, plus one member appointed by and from the MAUT-LS Executive.

Amendments to the By-law require a double approval: by MAUT Council, and by a two-thirds majority of MAUT-LS members voting by ballot. In the next two weeks, an electronic ballot will be arranged to see if the membership approves of the changes. PIC will then have to be reconstituted via election. There will be a nomination process and if the number of nominees is greater than the number of positions, there will be an election. Current members of PIC have agreed to stay on the committee until the new PIC is constituted.

A comment was made about the desirability of allowing three weeks for nominations instead of two, given that we are approaching the summer months. This will be considered by MAUT-LS Executive. Another comment regarded the rationale for PIC and the elevation of its status. M. Richard responded that PIC acts as an advisory body, and is also sometimes involved in the drafting stage of MAUT-LS documents. In some ways, it is similar to MAUT Council: it is wider than the Executive (though smaller than the full membership), and therefore it expands the range of opinions which is available to the Executive. In addition, PIC might generate documents or policy proposals to bring to the attention of the Executive. It can also serve as a multi-purpose workgroup. Finally, it convenes workshops which have proved enormously valuable, in particular to the new cohort of librarians.

A concern was articulated regarding how discussion may be moving away from the MAUT-LS meetings based on the new activities of PIC. M. Richard emphasized that PIC had provided much useful input but that the MAUT-LS General Meetings are still the main forum for discussion of issues.

Effects of MUNACA Strike on Tenure / Reappointment Dossiers

In January, MAUT Council passed a motion calling on the MAUT Executive to discuss with the Administration ways to address the situation of academic staff members whose progress towards reappointment or tenure has been adversely affected by the MUNACA strike. It is hoped that, among other measures, provision will be made for academic staff members to include a statement on this subject in their dossiers, particularly in the case of the members of this year's cohort whose dossiers are due by the September 1st deadline.

Acknowledgements

M. Richard finished his report by thanking Honore Kerwin-Borrelli, Joseph Varga, the members of MAUT Executive and MAUT Council, MAUT-LS Webmaster Jane Aitkens, the members of PIC, the members of the Nominating Committee, and the members of the Section Executive for all of their work in the past year.

b. Secretary-Treasurer (Genevieve Gore)

G. Gore presented the financial report for the four MAUT-LS accounts and noted that an order for 200 cheques had generated a significant charge to the account. It was not clear if the full amount could be reimbursed at that point, but this possibility would be further investigated.

c. Professional Issues Committee (Sean Swanick)

Once the new terms of reference for PIC are in place, J. Hobbins and R. Canuel would step down, making two spots available. PIC’s activities included helping craft an academic freedom statement (M. Richard mentioned this was forwarded to J. Aitkens, our representative on the Academic Freedom Committee). They created a roundtable discussion group to foster a time and place for individuals to discuss events taking place within the academic library community; their first meeting was May 1st. They had hoped to have a tenure dossier workshop but it was postponed on the recommendation of Dean due to the organization of a session by Lydia White. PIC was hoping to have another workshop this summer.

d. Academic Salary (Joan Hobbins)

J. Hobbins stated we no longer have a librarian on the Committee on Academic Staff Compensation. Merit increases were coming in June. She said the question of what was really the cost of living was a recurring issue. J. Galaty replied that we received a 1.2% increase, which was the government’s maximum and better than the scale amount that we had before. Merit was at 2.3%. The total package was 3.5%. J. Hobbins mentioned that this was roughly the same as it has been. J. Galaty pointed out that is was .5% higher than they had wanted to give us. The issue of our status within the G15 was ongoing. The aim is to be at the mean of the G15, with the aspiration to be in the top 3. In fact, we were 6th as of 5/6 years ago and we had dropped to 11th. New figures were available and we were still at 11/15. J. Galaty mentioned that with the student protests in Quebec, the climate is not a happy one for salary issues.

e. Senate (Marc Richard)

M. Richard referred to the Senate reports that he produces regularly and asked if there were any questions pertaining to the subjects they covered. One comment from the floor was about how helpful and useful they are, including the fact that they link to documents that one would not otherwise come across, such as the Provost’s April 15th presentation on staffing and the University. M. Richard noted that Caroline Riches (VP Communications, MAUT) will continue the tradition of forwarding them to the MAUT distribution list. J. Hobbins noted that we owe M. Richard great gratitude for this undertaking, a comment well received by the floor.

The other issue related to Senate was that it was still not known who the two Senators for the 2012-2015 term of office will be. This would only be known after May 17th. There were 7 people running for two seats in the initial ballot, which indicated a great amount of interest and participation.

f. Senate Committee on Libraries (Brian McMillan)

Submitted by Brian McMillan, April 30, 2012.

To see the mandate and membership of the Senate Committee on Libraries as well as minutes of previous meetings, visit

Report

Since my previous report to MAUT-LS, the Senate Committee on Libraries has met 2 more times, on February 13th in Islamic Studies and on April 25th in a common room in the Birks Building. The committee does not plan to meet again until the fall.

At February’s meeting, a new member, Professor Guillerina Almazan, a Senate appointee from the Department of Pharmacology in the Faculty of Medicine, joined the Committee.

In the Dean of Libraries Report, the following 5 points were addressed:

• The imminent launch of the Strategic Plan Working Groups
• The recent launch of the LibQual Lite survey
• Various facilities updates including the move to a single-service point, creation of HSSL’s Self-Serve Reserve Room, the ongoing asbestos abatement project, the McLennan-Redpath Terrace project, the McLennan-Redpath main floor redesign initiative, and the Life Sciences’ Cybermed
• Digitization projects including the initiative to provide open access to all McGill theses and dissertations and the Chapbook Digitization Project, and
• The Library’s current philanthropy efforts including a campaign to increase Osler’s endowment and to revive the Library Advancement Group.

Ensuing discussion centered on digitization practices of libraries and the preservation of rare materials.