Present: Bruce Mitchell (Guest), Lorraine Beattie, Susan Bellingham, Eric Boyd, Jane Forgay, Betty Graf, Mark Haslett (Chair), Christine Jewell, Ann Naese, Susan Routliffe, Mary Stanley, Linda Teather, Debbie Tytko, Annette Dandyk (Recorder)
Regrets: Richard Pinnell
Introductions were made around the table.
Special Recognition Award
Bruce Mitchell, Associate Provost, Academic and Student Affairs was welcomed to the meeting. Bruce had offered to speak to the group about the special recognition awards established as part of the 2004-2006 salary settlement for UW staff members. He participated in both the staff and faculty settlement negotiations, and first briefly outlined the faculty agreement.
Faculty have been concerned with the growing salary gap between the University of Toronto and UW. While the difference historically has been approximately 2%, it has now increased to approximately 10%. Starting salaries at U of T have also typically been higher. Bruce went on to describe “break points” in the UW faculty salary system. Recently hired faculty now often work relatively few years before reaching the break point. Before reaching the first break point they receive full merit; after reaching the first break point they receive half merit; and after passing the second break point, only quarter merit. Faculty at the top end of the salary scale thus have less opportunity to receive the full monetary benefit of the annual performance evaluation process. Widening salary gaps, higher starting salaries elsewhere, and the faculty merit system place UW’s best senior researchers in danger of being recruited away. To make the UW faculty salary arrangements more competitive, UW agreed to increase the faculty salary scale by 3.3% (above the expected rate of inflation), move the break points up, and establish a special recognition award. It will be a part of the merit review process, and the one time award of about $2,800 will go into base salary. In the spirit of openness and to address concerns over favouritism, the names of faculty receiving the awards will be made public to celebrate their performance.
The University wanted to develop something comparable for staff, while recognizing the differences between staff and faculty salary programs. After negotiations with representatives from the Staff Association, it was agreed to implement a range adjustment of 3.3%, and to establish an awards program to recognize dedicated and committed staff. An annual fund of $250,000 will be made available to provide awards of $1,000; awards will not go into base salary. In order to provide awards to as many commendable staff as possible, recipients of awards will not be eligible for another until two salary years have passed (the same arrangement as for faculty). Awards could be spread out during the salary year, with the exception of May and January. As with Faculty, names of recipients will be published.
Some staff jobs do not lend themselves to the spotlight as well as others; however, many dedicated and committed people consistently make everyday contributions and work to make UW successful. Committed staff who are a positive force, constructive, hard workers, and who may not have the opportunity for special projects or highly visible successes can be found at all levels across campus. It was noted that managers should be recognizing outstanding job performance during Performance Appraisals and the merit process.
Funds will be distributed to members of Executive Council (e.g. Deans, Vice Presidents, Associate Provosts) for department allotments under their supervision. To clarify what this means for the Library, if Bruce Mitchell had for example, 30% of campus staff under his supervision, the number of awards allocated to him could amount to approximately 30%. If the Library represents X% of that group, it’s likely that X% of the awards could come to the Library. It was stressed that there needs to be flexibility in the process. During the Fall, a four member team (including two from the Staff Association) will review the process and recommend how best to proceed. Criteria for identifying award recipients will need to be identified, but will likely be quite general to provide for the wide diversity of jobs across campus. The Staff Relations Committee will be seeking feedback, especially during the first year as the university learns how to carry out this initiative.
Discussion ensued around the table. Concerns, comments and suggestions include:
some people have expressed their expectation of receiving an award – this may create animosity among staff;
some staff feel that at the end of the three year cycle, there will be “winners” and “losers”;
at least one manager is experiencing difficulty separating the special recognition award from performance appraisals. “Unsung heroes” should be recognized by their managers and rewarded with an appropriate merit increase;
it was suggested that staff nominate their colleagues. Mark referred to it as a “By staff, for staff” approach. It was agreed that this is a good idea;
staff should take the time to think about colleagues they value working with and nominate them for an award;
a library wide meeting to discuss the matter was suggested (not just small groups within departments); perhaps also an opportunity to discuss with someone from the Staff Association;
there was also a suggestion that Mark discuss the matter with other managers who report to Bruce Mitchell, and share what they have heard with library staff;
the need for input from staff was recognized. Members of the four person team reviewing implementation procedures and criteria should be made aware of staff concerns;
when preparing submissions/nominations, some people have stronger writing skills than others and can make “staff come alive”. Concern was raised that this might influence the eventual outcome. Bruce recognizes that this issue will need to be considered.
Business Arising
#1. Update on Steps to Developing the Library’s Accessibility Plan
Progress is on track; there will likely be an update at the September meeting.
#7. Other Agenda
Susan B has consulted with appropriate staff on campus and UW has provided feedback to AUCC as requested.
Updates etc.
Recognition and commendation
The last few days have been difficult for staff because TRELLIS was unavailable, and because of the heat. The university has asked that departments reduce energy use so it’s appropriate for the Library to do so. Staff efforts in coping are appreciated.
There are two staff anniversaries in August: Shirley Fraser, ILL/DD, celebrated five years in the Library on August 11th; Laurie Strome, User Services – Porter celebrates 15 years on August 22nd.
Laurie Strome’s organization and participation in Student Life 101 was commended. Casual staff (Michelle Bissonnette, Jonathan Kitay, and Feng-Pin Hsiao) also helped out.
Charles Woods convened a special interest group meeting at the EndUser meeting in Chicago (April 2003) that was well received. We have been told that “many people expressed the opinion that it was one of the best sessions overall”.
The work of Systems staff in the past few weeks was recognized, as they dealt with first the virus, and then a blackout. The TRELLIS upgrade had to be postponed, but much work had already been completed beforehand.
Quality Assurance Fund Proposal
In late July UW was informed that it was eligible for one-time money from the provincial government through the “quality assurance fund” for Colleges and Universities. To obtain the funding an institutional quality plan needed to be submitted in August. Bruce Mitchell asked those reporting to him e.g. Mark to prepare proposals for the use of these funds. In light of the tight time frame Mark, Susan, and Lorraine drafted a proposal, arranged in priority order and based on the Library’s strategic directions. The proposal document was distributed to managers at the meeting. The Library’s proposal has been well received, but that does not ensure that the Library will receive any of the one-time funds. It is not known when we will learn the outcome.
Cambridge Architecture
Significant time and effort have gone into planning the Branch Library for the School of Architecture in Cambridge. The project is to be cost neutral to the Library; funding continues to be an issue and a concern for the Faculty of Environmental Studies and the School of Architecture. During a meeting of Mark, Richard Pinnell, Geoff McBoyle, Gary Waller, and Murray in May, Richard was asked to outline three options in the event that full funding would not be immediately possible. Creation of a Branch in Cambridge has implications for the rest of the Library, e.g. stacks, collections, and staff.
Mark plans to schedule a meeting in September to discuss timelines, get an update on the status of funding, and examine options for the Library. The Architecture task group also needs to meet again.
Vacation Policy
UW policy #6 outlines the number of days people receive, how they are earned, when to take them, and emphasizes the importance of vacation. Staff are explicitly encouraged in the policy to take at least one two-week holiday per year. The policy states that vacation days must be used by June 30, however, the library extends that period to August 31. Library staff wishing to carry forward days past August 31 for unusual circumstances should make a request through their manager. The final decision rests with Mark.
Organizational Structure Discussions
Mark has attended a number of departmental meetings, heard from a variety of staff, and received good feedback. He plans further discussion at the September 16 Managers/LBPC meeting.
news@yourlibrary
An issue is scheduled for release the 2nd week of September, and will focus on the orientation program and include a welcome from Mark. The group was reminded that Mary is always looking for ideas for future issues, and encouraged them to send articles/information to her. Discussion about news@yourlibrary will continue to be a regular item at Managers/LBPC meetings. Several possible topics for future issues were identified:
CARL study “Towards a Canadian Research Strategy for Knowledge Dissemination”
Quality assurance funds
Bios of new Librarians
Recent donations and gifts
Update on Wireless
Staffing/cost proposals
Proposals by Betty concerning Government Publications were discussed and require further review.
ISR has reviewed the matter of Government Publications information service pending the retirement of the GP Librarian. It was proposed that the GP desk be closed, and that people who currently work at the desk could take referrals from the main desk, while at their own workstations. The change would likely occur at the beginning of the new term, and the GP information desk and workstation would be removed as soon as appropriate. The long-term goal is to provide GP service from the main desk, but desk staff need to be trained first. Users requiring help locating materials once they have a call number can receive assistance from the User Services full-time staff member located on the 5th floor, or one of the three shelvers trained to shelve government documents. Comments should be forwarded to Jane.
Update on UW Coop Student Placements
The Library was offered 16 UW coop placements with no charge to the Library. Fourteen placements have already been requested: 4 in User Services; 3 in Cataloguing; 3 in Systems, 2 in Special Collections; 1 to carry out Web Ops work, and 1 to do usability testing. Placements are occurring over this summer, or will occur during the fall and winter terms.
Update from Systems
The Windows XP staff workstation upgrade is progressing but has been delayed by various emergencies. Priority for upgrades are ISR staff computers.
Work is progressing very well on the prototype for terminal services access to the Library’s locally-networked CDROM databases. This could provide access via the web for authenticated users from both in-house and external computers. Summer Co-op student, Alen Petros, has a prototype out for review by some ISR staff. In the remaining two weeks of his work term, Alen will set up the production server and start loading databases. Then, once terminal services licenses have been negotiated and more databases loaded, the system should be ready to go live some time in the Fall term
Campaign Update
Deferred to next meeting.
TUG Stats & Reports
Work with the TUG Reports Training Team is going well and training sessions are being planned for TUG Library staff this Fall. Linda will send a draft list of UW trainees to Managers for review.
At its last meeting the TUG Stats and Reports Group (TSR) updated its task list and timeline. Many items have now been completed. Copies of the list were distributed at the meeting.
The Cube Archiving Policy and Schedule was revised and approved at the last TSR meeting. Changes reflect comments made at a previous Library Managers meeting and additional Transactions-reserves archiving dates requested by the Circulation/Reserves managers. Copies of the revised document were distributed at the meeting. The document will be added to TSR’s page on the TUG Staff Web.
The UW Stats and Reports Group has been reorganizing and documenting the statistics area on the R: drive. An email to staff about this is in preparation.
External stats season has begun. The report to Maclean’s has been submitted. Work on the ARL and CARL stats will begin soon
Next meeting: September 16, 2003
University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883
contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011
University of Waterloo