University of Oregon Libraries Program Review Self-Study 2013 Editing Team: Ed Teague (Chair), Margaret Bean, Katie Moss, and Tom Stave Writing Team: Deb Carver, Andrew Bonamici, Nancy Slight-Gibney, Laine Stambaugh, and Mark Watson Cover Art by Mandi Garcia Table of Contents I. ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 5 I. A. Administrative Structure ............................................................................................................... 5 I. B. Governance ................................................................................................................................... 5 I. B. 1. Decision-making/Policy-setting Groups ................................................................................ 5 I. B. 2. Advisory/Deliberative Groups ............................................................................................... 6 II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 8 II. A. Summarize the library’s programs and services. How have these services evolved to address current and changing needs of the campus and the larger scholarly community? ............................. 8 II. A. 1. Collection Development, Acquisition, and Preservation ..................................................... 8 II. A. 2. Institutional Repository ........................................................................................................ 9 II. A. 3. Metadata Services .............................................................................................................. 10 II. A. 4. Data Services Management ............................................................................................... 10 II. A. 5. Circulation and Reserves .................................................................................................... 11 II. A. 6. Resource Sharing ................................................................................................................ 11 II. A. 7. Reference and Research Support....................................................................................... 12 II. A. 8. Instruction & Outreach ...................................................................................................... 12 II. A. 9. Scholarly Communications ................................................................................................. 13 II. A. 10. Digital Scholarship ............................................................................................................. 13 II. A. 11. Public Programs and Exhibitions ....................................................................................... 14 II. A. 12. Library Facilities ............................................................................................................... 14 1) Repurposing Library Spaces .................................................................................................... 14 2) New Branch Libraries .............................................................................................................. 15 II. A. 13. Educational Technology Support ..................................................................................... 16 II. A. 14. Library Website ................................................................................................................ 17 II. B. Describe the nature and extent of the library’s collaborations on campus and with library, IT, and other communities. ...................................................................................................................... 17 II. B. 1. University collaborations ................................................................................................... 17 a) University Governance ............................................................................................................ 17 b) University Divisions, Centers, and Services ............................................................................ 18 c) Academic Departments and Programs ................................................................................... 19 2 II. B. 2. External Collaborations: Library, IT, and Other Communities .......................................... 22 a) Collaborative Projects ............................................................................................................ 22 b) Memberships ......................................................................................................................... 23 III. USE OF COLLECTIONS AND SERVICES ........................................................... 24 III. A. COLLECTIONS. Describe the use of the collections by various constituents. What, if any new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? ............... 24 III. A. 1. Local Print Collections ........................................................................................................ 24 III. A. 2. Electronic Collections ......................................................................................................... 25 III. B. Core Services. Describe the use of core library services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? .................................... 25 III. B. 1. Use of Reference and Research Services .......................................................................... 25 III. B. 2. Instruction & Outreach ..................................................................................................... 26 III. B. 3. Resource Sharing ................................................................................................................ 26 III. B. 4. UO Libraries Website Use .................................................................................................. 27 III. C. Instructional Technology. Describe the use of the library's instructional technology services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? ............................................................................................................................................. 27 III. C. 1. Use of Instructional Technologies ..................................................................................... 27 III. C. 2. Instructional Technology Trends ....................................................................................... 29 III. D. Library Facilities. Describe the use of core library services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? .................................... 30 IV. STAFFING .................................................................................................... 30 IV. A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 30 IV. B. Faculty: Describe the different responsibilities of faculty, and how those responsibilities are changing. ............................................................................................................................................. 30 IV. B. 1. Background: Faculty Status of Librarians ......................................................................... 30 IV. B. 2. Evolving Roles ................................................................................................................... 31 IV. C. Classified Staff: Describe the different responsibilities of classified staff, and how those responsibilities are changing............................................................................................................... 32 IV. D. Student Employees ................................................................................................................... 34 IV. E. Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs) ............................................................................................ 34 IV. F. Volunteers ................................................................................................................................. 34 IV. G. Investment: Describe opportunities/support for professional development & training ........ 34 3 IV. G. 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 34 IV. G. 2. Supported travel ............................................................................................................... 34 IV. G. 3. Solari and High Jump Awards .......................................................................................... 35 IV. G. 4. Professional and Organizational Development Fund ....................................................... 35 IV. G. 5. Employee Success Program (ESP) ..................................................................................... 36 IV. H. Diversity .................................................................................................................................... 36 IV. H. 1. How has the library addressed the campus goals related to diversity? ........................... 36 IV. H. 2. What specific plans does the library have in place to increase the proportions of traditionally underrepresented groups? ......................................................................................... 37 V. FUNDING ..................................................................................................... 38 V. A. Describe the budget process. What impact has the library’s funding had on services and collections? ......................................................................................................................................... 38 V.B. Describe the library’s fundraising program and grant-funded activity ...................................... 40 V. B. 1. Fundraising ......................................................................................................................... 40 V. B. 2. Grant-Funded Activity ......................................................................................................... 41 VI. PLANNING, EVALUATION, AND ASSESSMENT .............................................. 42 VI. A. Planning ..................................................................................................................................... 42 VI. B. Personnel Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 43 VI. B. 1. Classified Staff ................................................................................................................... 43 VI. B. 2. Officers of Administration................................................................................................. 43 VI. B. 3. Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) ..................................................................................... 43 VI. B. 4. Department Heads ............................................................................................................. 44 VI. B. 5. Associate University Librarians ......................................................................................... 44 VI. B. 6. Dean of the Libraries ......................................................................................................... 44 VI. C. Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 44 VI. C. 1. Assessment Team ............................................................................................................. 44 VI. C. 2. Assessment Tools .............................................................................................................. 45 a) Benchmarks ............................................................................................................................ 45 b) User satisfaction surveys ........................................................................................................ 45 c) Observational studies ............................................................................................................. 46 VII. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: SUMMARY .............................................................. 47 4 VII. A. What changes in demand are anticipated? ........................................................................ 47 VII. B. Is the library staffed adequately to meet the needs of the campus (FTE as well as areas of expertise)? If available resources remain the same, how will the library respond to anticipated changes in use of services and collections? ........................................................................................ 49 VII. C. Could the services and collections be improved through additional collaboration with internal or external units or organizations? ....................................................................................... 50 VII. D. What steps are currently being taken to improve efficiency? Should the library take additional steps? ................................................................................................................................. 50 VIII. SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................... 51 VIII. A. Summarize the major strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities facing the library. Review briefly the library’s major objectives for the next three to five years. What are the resource requirements associated with the library’s major objectives? ........................................................... 51 Strengths ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Weaknesses .................................................................................................................................... 53 Opportunities .................................................................................................................................. 54 Threats and Challenges ................................................................................................................... 54 Immediate Objectives and Resources Needed to Meet Those Objectives ..................................... 55 Appendix A: Links to Library Trend Data and Benchmarks ................................ 58 Appendix B: Underrepresented Minorities Faculty Recruitment Plan: Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 59 Appendix C: Contract Renewal & Promotion Procedures for Library Faculty .... 62 A star in the right margin indicates a point of pride or notable achievement 5 I. ORGANIZATION I. A. Administrative Structure The University of Oregon Libraries is an academic unit of its parent institution. The Dean of Libraries reports directly to the Senior Vice President and Provost and sits on the Council of Academic Deans. This organizational and reporting relationship enables the UO Libraries to participate in the ongoing development and execution of the university's academic plan as well as to engage fully in matters of importance regarding the institution’s teaching and research mission. The organizational chart for the UO Libraries reflects an administrative hierarchy common to research libraries. The chart does not reflect the numerous cross-departmental groups that also carry out the organization's responsibilities. These groups, which collectively provide leadership for the library, can be described as either decision-making/policy-setting in nature or primarily advisory/deliberative. I. B. Governance I. B. 1. Decision-making/Policy-setting Groups a) Library Administration. Library Administration consists of the Philip H. Knight Dean of Libraries, the Associate University Librarian for Collections and Access, and the Associate University Librarian for Media and Instructional Services. The administrative portfolios of Library Administration have become increasingly fluid over time. In general, the direct reports to the dean oversee units with horizontal functions, such as library communications, library development, library systems, organizational development and human resources, and resource management and assessment. The two exceptions are the heads of the Law Library and Special Collections & University Archives. The Collections and Access division is comprised of departments that are typically associated with research library organizations: the Architecture and Allied Arts Library, Access Services, Collection Services, Document Center, Reference and Research Services, and the Science Library. The Media and Instructional Services division is made up of units whose responsibilities cover a broad range of educational technologies, such as units associated with the Center for Media and Educational Technology (Interactive Media, Classroom Technology, Educational Video and Streaming Media), the Digital Scholarship Center, and the Portland Library and Learning Commons. Strategic advisors to Library Administration are the Director of Resource Management and Assessment and the Director of Organizational Development and Human Resources who are frequently called upon for information and counsel. b) Library Council. Library Administration brings substantive issues to the attention of Library Council which meets twice a month. Council membership is composed of all library department heads and the leaders of several key units. The council functions as a decision-making and policy-setting body. 6 Council meetings are also the primary venue for strategic planning discussions. Members of Library Council have major responsibility in managing communication throughout the organization. Library Administration is reviewing approaches to council membership to enhance productivity and participation. c) Library Department Heads. Department heads are key managers who play strategic roles in planning, personnel management, and organizational communication. d) Library Teams and Major Committees. A number of standing committees, groups, or teams have been established and given the authority to oversee operational functions, and make decisions and recommendations as appropriate for the library delivery of programs and services. Within each group is an individual designated as liaison to Library Administration. These groups currently include the following: • Assessment Team • Collection Managers • Emergency Preparedness and Response Team • Exhibits Committee • Diversity Committee • Gateway to Organizational Learning and Development (GOLD) • Instruction and Outreach Team • Lending Supervisors Group • Marketing Team • Scholarly Communications and Copyright Team • Student Supervisors Group • Tablesetters (individuals who make decisions about integrated library system coding) • Web Development Team (WebDev) I. B. 2. Advisory/Deliberative Groups The advisory groups provide opportunities for discussion and feedback from internal as well as external constituents. The information gathered through these channels provides a healthy check and balance. They also serve as a testing ground for the decisions and policies promulgated through Library Administration, the council, the departments, and the teams. a) Budget Advisory Group. The growing complexities associated with implementing the university's new budget model precipitated the need to share information and gather advice more broadly within the organization. In 2012, the dean created a Budget Advisory Group consisting of the heads of three major library departments who meet monthly with Library Administration, the Director of Resource Management and Assessment, and the Director of 7 Organizational Development and Human Resources. The group is currently preparing documentation required for fiscal year 2014 budget planning. b) Classified Staff Advisory Committee. This committee meets every other month with the dean and provides an opportunity for Library Administration to share information regarding library planning, policies, and programs while also enabling classified staff to relate concerns and suggestions. The group organizes skill building programs for library staff. c) Library Advancement Council. The advancement council, made up of alumni and donors, is a critical part of the library's fundraising and outreach efforts. In addition to their philanthropic support of the library, council members are engaged in advocacy, fundraising, and stewardship. d) Library Faculty. The Library Faculty, composed of both Officers of Instruction (ranked Non- Tenure Track Faculty) and Officers of Administration (unranked administrative faculty), elects a slate of officers every spring and meets monthly during the academic year. The stated purpose of the Library Faculty is to “consider matters of mutual interest, promote better communication, and provide a forum for democratic participation in policy making.” Governed by a set of bylaws, the Library Faculty elects representatives for service on the Library Faculty Personnel Committee and the Grants and Awards Committee. Two ranked faculty librarians are elected to represent the UO Libraries on the University Senate. e) Library Subject Specialists. Subject specialists are the library's primary liaisons to academic departments. They work closely with faculty and students to ensure that the library is meeting teaching and research needs. Subject specialists carry out responsibilities in the areas of collection development, instruction, and research assistance. Subject specialists meet twice monthly to share information and discuss matters across the scope of their responsibilities. The AUL for Collections and Services meets regularly with three discipline-oriented collection managers and the head of Collection Services to make decisions regarding collection policies, processes, and major acquisitions. f) Student Advisory Group. This group is comprised of the Residential Freshmen Interest Group advisors who represent a range of academic majors. Members of this group are heavy library users and advise other undergraduates. The Student Advisory Group meets quarterly with the dean and the library's Director of Instruction and Campus Partnerships. Feedback from this committee has inspired projects such as the installation of lockers in Knight Library and the establishment of the Popular Reading Collection. g) University Library Committee (ULC). The ULC is a standing committee of the University Senate whose members are appointed by that body's Committee on Committees. The ULC is responsible for advising University Administration on library affairs, serving in an advisory capacity to Library Administration, acting as a liaison between the library and faculty, and providing a faculty perspective on library budgetary matters. Committee membership consists of up to ten teaching faculty or officers of research, broadly representative of academic disciplines, and two student members. 8 II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION II. A. Summarize the library’s programs and services. How have these services evolved to address current and changing needs of the campus and the larger scholarly community? The UO Libraries has a broad portfolio of programs and services that is unusual among members of the Association of Research Libraries. It includes support for educational technology on campus in addition to traditional library operations such as collection development and acquisitions, access services, and reference and instructional activities. The library strives to become an organization that can adapt responsibly to changing user needs and expectations. II. A. 1. Collection Development, Acquisition, and Preservation Building collections in traditional print and audiovisual formats continues to be a core service of the UO Libraries, but the approach to collection development has substantially changed in recent years. The library has moved from the untenable paradigm of building a local comprehensive collection toward a model of achieving comprehensiveness by working collaboratively with other institutions. As a member of the Orbis Cascade Alliance (the Alliance), the UO Libraries collaborates with thirty-seven libraries in developing a unified research corpus. Alliance libraries are working together to choose a common book vendor, to reduce duplication in a shared collection, and to implement shared approval plans. The library's subject specialists are mindful that they are selecting materials not just for local needs but for the multi- institutional collection. The acquisition and use of electronic resources have grown exponentially during the past decade. Text, image, sound, and video in electronic format have transformed the university community's approaches to instruction, study, and research. The library has acquired over 300,000 electronic books to date. In the sciences, the purchase of major e-book sets is fostering the vision of a new science library where the collections are nearly all online. Problematic with e-book acquisition is that licensing can potentially restrict access to one campus thus limiting options for multi-institutional resource sharing. The collaborative acquisition of electronic resources represents another opportunity to meet changing needs with limited resources. A recent example is the library's participation in a demand-driven e-book project with its Orbis Cascade Alliance partners. Consortium members contribute to a central fund to pay for the service and ultimate purchases. An e-book purchase is automatically initiated when user demand for a title exceeds a certain threshold. Because the e-book is owned by the consortium, it can be used by anyone within the Alliance, thereby reducing the time and expense associated with traditional resource sharing. To date, UO users have accessed approximately $850,000 worth of e-books for an investment of $81,000—an impressive return on investment. 9 The UO Libraries has been a leader in creating digital assets, and the library's locally created digital collections represent some of the best examples of collaboration with partners on campus and beyond. Often scanned from unique archival holdings, the number of collections has grown from four in 2004 to forty-nine in 2013. Probably the earliest digital collection, the e-Asia Library, remains one of the most heavily accessed. The subjects of the collections reflect the diverse range of interests of the university community: Northwest folklife, regional architecture, Oregon maps, lesbian intentional communities, UO athletics, historic sheet music, indigenous cultures, and public art. The Tribal Legacies collection presents a major step in providing extended access to a variety of materials in the UO Libraries that pertain to Native American ethnography and history. Digitization has made these rich resources easier to discover and access. For example, the Local and Regional Documents Archive provides a centralized, fully searchable repository and archive of significant documents produced by local governments in the state of Oregon. The Historic Oregon Newspapers digital collection makes accessible the full text of dozens of fragile newspapers published in the state from the 1850s to the mid-1920s. While digital collections grow in number and popularity, collections in other unique formats continue to hold interest. The library has rich holdings of archives, maps, historical manuscripts, moving images, audio collections and government documents. In 2011, the UO Libraries began acquiring the permanent archives of Oregon’s farmworkers union, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste/Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United. This collection will enable significant research and learning opportunities for students, faculty, and visiting scholars, while simultaneously strengthening ongoing connections to the Latino(a) community in Oregon. Special Collections & University Archives is active in acquiring materials related to under-represented groups, such as Oregon tribes, African Americans, other Latino(a) groups, the LGBT community and emigrants from Southeast Asia. Primary sources of special interest have been lent to museums and cultural institutions in the United States and abroad, enhancing numerous exhibits. A special endowment enables the Architecture and Allied Arts Library to acquire rare architectural books. In 2010, the Science Library started collecting video games, which has proven to be a successful endeavor. The UO Libraries continue to provide a preservation program, one of the few in the state. Services in the Beach Conservation Lab focus on preserving materials unique to the collections, paired with the use of external expertise when necessary. II. A. 2. Institutional Repository Created by the library in 2003, Scholars' Bank is the open access repository for the intellectual work of UO's faculty, students, and staff. The repository now holds approximately 10,500 items. Open access journals, student projects, theses, dissertations, pre- and post-print articles, instructional resources, and university archival material are all among the holdings of this resource. Scholars’ Bank also includes a substantial number of local planning documents and other local government publications. 10 II. A. 3. Metadata Services Cataloging and metadata creation have been evolving to meet the needs of an increasingly digital, networked environment. Bibliographic records are acquired and loaded in sets for collections of electronic resources (e-books in particular) as well as print (government documents at the state and federal level). Cataloging staff have expanded their skill sets to provide metadata for digital and archival collections and to work in content management systems such as Archivist’s Toolkit and CONTENTdm. Serials catalogers manage access to continually fluctuating packages of electronic journal content through electronic resource management software and provide support for projects to preserve journal content through shared repositories. Catalogers still provide access to print and media resources by creating or editing individual bibliographic records, but increasingly this is done primarily for unique or local materials. UO participates in all of the components of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (NACO, SACO, CONSER, and BIBCO). Preparing for the implementation of RDA (Resource Description and Access), the new descriptive cataloging standard, has been a major focus in the past year. Catalogers are also preparing for the migration to a shared ILS, undertaking extensive quality review and cleanup of data, and participating in consortial efforts to develop collaborative technical services. Collection curators supply metadata for many of the library's digital collections using standards developed for specific content, such as the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the cataloging rules developed by the Visual Resources Association. An example is UO's Art & Architecture Image Collection curated by the Visual Resources Librarian. Guidance to faculty on metadata standards and practices will be a service of the emerging Digital Scholarship Center. II. A. 4. Data Services Management In 2008, the UO Libraries hired its first Data Services Librarian, a position that at the time was uncommon among the library's peers. In the intervening years, the attention that cyber- infrastructure has received on the national level as well as the growing need to help universities deal with the volume of research data sets has confirmed the value of such a position. In 2011, the National Science Foundation (NSF) began requiring a data management plan with all new research proposals. This requirement has moved the Data Services Librarian into a prominent educational and advisory role, and has strengthened the library's partnerships with other units on campus. A comprehensive online guide, training sessions, and consultations have since moved forward. In 2012, the Office of Sponsored Projects Services agreed that the Data Services Librarian will be allowed to access and review UO grant proposals submitted with data management plans. This access will strengthen the library's ability to anticipate and plan for the services that researchers need. In response to need, the data services program now includes in addition to the Science Data Services Librarian, a Social Sciences Data Services Librarian, and a librarian focused on GIS data management. 11 II. A. 5. Circulation and Reserves The library's circulation policies have modified in the past decade to address changing expectations and ameliorate the decline in circulation of library materials. Loan restrictions that were commonplace a few years ago have been replaced with more liberal policies that promote use of the collections. The library has also implemented new access services to encourage use, such as the paging of print items to the hold shelf of the patron’s selected library; the paging of print items to academic departments; and the paging of print collections for distance education faculty and students. The library also provides an e-document delivery service: articles or book chapters are digitized and sent to requesting faculty or Distance Education patrons. Several years ago, Knight Library began extending its hours of operation to 24/5 in response to student demand. Student government shares the costs of providing appropriate security during extended hours. In 2003, the UO Libraries introduced the Oregon Card Program, a service that allows free borrowing to any person who is at least age sixteen and can provide proof of a current Oregon mailing address. II. A. 6. Resource Sharing Resource sharing is a signature service of the UO Libraries. Interlibrary Loan and Summit Processing have recently been combined into one work unit named Resource Sharing. Both operations are frequently noted as among the most effective within the library system. The resource sharing operations make it possible for the UO Libraries to advocate for strengthening multi-institutional collections instead of duplicating resources held by other libraries, especially those within the Alliance. A few of the services offered by the library's Resource Sharing unit include providing status of requests online 24/7, requesting material from libraries worldwide, and processing user requests within 2 business days. In 2012, Resource Sharing implemented a purchase-on-demand pilot for materials under $200.00 in cases where the UO cannot find a supplier or where a borrowing request has been returned unfilled. The UO community continues to rely heavily on materials borrowed from other libraries. The majority of this activity occurs within the Orbis Cascade Alliance Summit system, and, chiefly due to the way the management software operates, the library is now an overall net borrower instead of a net lender. However, isolating traditional interlibrary loans, the opposite is true as the library requested 32,614 items and lent 48,973 items in FY12. Through ILL, the library lends three articles for every one requested. The installation of ILLiad software has contributed to more efficient work, faster copyright payment processing, and the ability to gather more granular statistics in Resource Sharing. The unit has been granted access to an institutional credit card in order to purchase material directly and pay outstanding invoices. The Resource Sharing unit collaborates with subject specialists on difficult borrowing requests which has helped to reduce the number of cancelled requests. 12 II. A. 7. Reference and Research Support Reference service is provided throughout the UO Libraries by way of e-mail, telephone, appointments, and assistance at service points. The ubiquity of mobile computing devices such as smart phones, laptops, and tablets, and good wireless coverage have made it easier for users to engage librarians and library resources through electronic means. Since 2007, the library has made available a chat reference service accessible through the library website. That service now accounts for more than a quarter of all reference transactions. While one-on-one consultations are still in demand, the number of users seeking assistance at the traditional reference desk continues to decline, mirroring the trend at other ARL libraries. The Reference and Research Services department in Knight Library plans to maintain reference desk coverage which is valued by those who need it, and enables librarians to gain insight into user behavior and common difficulties that can inform approaches to instruction, website design, and faculty collaborations. The department is extending the one-to-one approach by undertaking a pilot project whereby librarians will offer assistance to users in the upper floors of the Knight Library. Librarians will roam the space with an iPad equipped for offering assistance with online resources as well as the ability to communicate via chat with the staff at the desk. Science Library subject specialists are broadening the scope of their work to include imbedding in science courses and interacting with university science literacy programs. In planning the new and renovated Science Commons and Research Library, services for the UO STEM community and the K-12 community at large are being considered. II. A. 8. Instruction & Outreach The UO Libraries offers an increasingly diversified instruction program across a variety of disciplines and specialized programs. These instruction sessions include orientations, course- integrated instruction, credit courses; Freshman Interest Group (FIG) sessions; Writing 123 instruction; and IntroDUCKtion and Week of Welcome orientations. Freshman seminars taught by librarians include "How to Do Baseball Research," "Disastrous Inquiries: Research into Catastrophes and Crisis Situations," and "History of the Book." The library is also able to create its own credit courses. Introduction to Information Services (LIB 101) is a one-credit course covering basic research strategies and resources. LIB 199-399 provide opportunities to create topical approaches to general and subject-related library resources. The instruction program also offers practicum and reading and conference credits for advanced undergraduates and graduate students. In 2012, the Dean of Libraries appointed a cross-departmental team to provide leadership and planning for the instruction and outreach program. The charge includes articulating and advancing instruction and outreach objectives within the library’s strategic directions, developing measurable goals, recommending improvements to instructional facilities, tracking 13 and evaluating trends and best practices, facilitating professional development for library instructors, and coordinating programs with other library and campus groups. Also in 2012, the library strengthened its instructional program by hiring its first Undergraduate Services Librarian. Reporting to the Director, Instruction and Campus Partnerships, this new position provides direct user services in areas of teaching, research, and outreach, and also serves as manager of the new Global Scholars Hall Library and Learning Commons. The library has cultivated a number of campus partnerships that have provided instruction opportunities. Among them are Pathway Oregon, to connect first generation college students with the library; the Office of Equity and Inclusion Young Scholars Program; the McNair Scholars Program; the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program; and the Summerbridge program for incoming freshman athletes. II. A. 9. Scholarly Communications The UO Libraries has a long-standing and active scholarly communications program. In collaboration with campus partners, the library has contributed to the passage of two University Senate resolutions encouraging UO authors to use authors’ addenda when publishing. The library has established a grant program, Open Access Publishing Support Fund, to pay a portion of the author fees for UO authors publishing in open access publications. Additionally, the library provides free publishing support for e-journals sponsored by UO departments or edited by university faculty. The UO Libraries also maintains the institutional repository, Scholars’ Bank, to provide faculty with an easy way to archive their publications and other research products. Finally, the library is a founding contributor to the arXiv sustainability initiative and continues to maintain an institutional membership. II. A. 10. Digital Scholarship The most recent strategic contribution to the research enterprise is the creation of the Digital Scholarship Center (DSC). The DSC offers a suite of services to support researchers who need to explore and use technology for analysis, expression, and distribution of their work. Like most research universities, the UO is experiencing a surge in interest in digital scholarship; new media; creating new forms of knowledge; and exploring the impact of technology on teaching, learning, and discovery. The DSC is modeled after successful programs at other institutions (University of Maryland, University of Nebraska, Brown University, Columbia University, and NYU) and informed by interviews and surveys with UO faculty and graduate students. The DSC is in its very initial stages, but our goal is to expand the services based on our engagement with faculty over the next several months. Immediate services include training and consultation, a speaker series, digital archiving, and sandbox server space for experimentation. Faculty engagement will come from an advisory board, faculty fellowships, and current and prospective projects. 14 II. A. 11. Public Programs and Exhibitions The library's exhibit program highlights the strengths and diversity of the library's collections, promotes library programs and campus events, acknowledges gifts and encourages giving, and celebrates library and university milestones and accomplishments. Several campus libraries have exhibit spaces. The exhibit hallways of Knight Library have featured such diverse subjects as the women's suffrage movement in Oregon; historical photographs of Oregon's workers; campus architecture; archival holdings, such as those of film director James Ivory; and faculty publications. The exhibit cases in Special Collections & University Archives routinely feature treasures from those collections. Often an online exhibit accompanies and documents the physical display. Knight Library also serves as a center of cultural activity on campus by hosting many university events in the historic Browsing Room and other spaces. Promotion of library events is managed by the library's Director of Communications who employs the website, posters, social media, and digital signage to relate news and announcements. II. A. 12. Library Facilities The library system consists of a main library (Knight Library), the Architecture and Allied Arts (AAA) Library, the John E. Jaqua Law Library, the Mathematics Library, the Science Library, the Lloyd & Dorothy Rippey Library of the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, the Global Scholars Hall Library Commons, and the UO Portland Library and Learning Commons. Use of library facilities continues to increase, and at times exceeds 11,000 users a day during the academic year. In response to user expectations, the allocation of library space has evolved to support a range of academic needs, including collaboration rooms, quiet spaces, classrooms, multimedia production facilities and public computing. The library has addressed these needs by repurposing existing spaces and by creating two new branch libraries. The library also assumed responsibility for managing three computer labs formerly controlled by Information Services. The addition of these labs to the library’s portfolio approximately doubled the number of student computers supported by the library. 1) Repurposing Library Spaces Knight Library, the state of Oregon's largest library building, has been subject to many alterations and expansions of its original Depression Era structure. Recent changes include the adaptation of library space to classrooms to address a pressing campus facilities need. In 2011, the library collaborated with Academic Affairs and Facilities Services to convert Room 101 into a large multi-purpose room that can accommodate classes of up to eighty students during the day. Because of changes in use patterns, the library no longer needed Room 101 for reserve reading and video viewing equipment. Now scheduled by the registrar, this room has become a high-demand classroom because of its design, capacity, location, and technology. When not serving as a class, it available for events and open study. Also released to the registrar for scheduling are six smaller rooms in use continuously by classes. 15 In 2009, the Cinema Studies Lab was created in Knight Library primarily to support an interdisciplinary major sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, and the School of Journalism and Communication. The lab is equipped with twenty-two workstations for film production and screening. The Special Collections & University Archives department in the Knight Library introduced a state-of-the-art classroom in 2009. This room will facilitate instruction when access to the department's primary sources is also required. The Science Library was remodeled in 2008 to include two classrooms equipped with instructional technology. A room housing books was repurposed as an Anatomy and Physiology room. In the design stage is an expanded and renovated Science Library. The new Science Commons and Research Library is being designed to promote collaboration, experimentation, and investigation. Emphasis will be placed on expanded access to digital content, as well as services related to informatics and data curation. New services could include visualization laboratories and other learning and research spaces designed to collect, analyze, and display data. A unit of the Science Library, the Mathematics Library in Fenton Hall, was relocated and renovated in 2011 as part of a seismic upgrade of that historic building. Because of its new and visible location, added technology, and expanded services, the library has seen a substantial increase in use. In 2006, a digitization lab was created in the Visual Resources Collection (VRC), at that time a unit of the AAA Library, to create digital images for course instruction as an alternative to slides. Due to the success of that initiative, the VRC as a unit is closing, and the employees of the VRC have already become part of the Digital Scholarship Center. The AAA Library will make use of the vacated VRC area to expand space for users and collections by 25 percent. 2) New Branch Libraries The Portland Library and Learning Commons (PLLC) opened in 2008 in the renovated White Stag Block as part of the UO's expansion and consolidation of its presence in Portland. In addition to traditional library functions, the PLLC staff supports educational technologies for the Portland site. In 2012, the PLLC added a computer-equipped classroom, and planning is underway for a materials library to support UO's design disciplines as well as practitioners in the community. The UO is currently undertaking a situational analysis and assessment of the university's Portland programs and services, and the results of this study will help inform PLLC's future directions. The PLLC replaced and expanded upon the library's first Portland operation, the Portland Architecture Library which opened in 1995. The Global Scholars Hall Library Commons (GSHLC) opened in fall 2012 as UO's first full-service library located within a residence hall. The library provides a full-time professional librarian and 16 residence-based program of integrated research support and technology support. The collections are primarily digital, with small permanent and rotating print collections focused on the courses, students, and events in the Global Scholars Hall. The space is designed to encourage collaboration and engagement in the learning community. The vision and realization of the GSHLC resulted from extensive collaboration with Housing’s Academic Initiatives, the Robert D. Clark Honors College, Undergraduate Studies and First Year Programs, and many more campus partners. II. A. 13. Educational Technology Support The UO Libraries has always managed the university's audio-visual services, which include classroom technology for the general-use classrooms, video production and distribution services, and broadcasting services. With the advent of newer technologies, the library’s Center for Media and Educational Technology (CMET) has gradually expanded scope and expertise to address the changing interests and needs of the university community. CMET's responsibilities now include distance education support and teleconferencing capabilities; streaming media; course management support (Blackboard); instructional design and hybrid course development; learning object research, design, and development; consultation in design of teaching and event facilities; specification, acquisition, and installation of media equipment; and information architecture and usability testing for website and interactive media. Following an external review of information technology at the UO, the campus decided in 2012 to merge the instructional technology programs offered by Information Services (IS) with the library’s programs. This reorganization was intended to reduce program redundancy and organizational overlap, create new efficiencies and consistent services levels, and allow IS to focus resources on critical strategic and operational needs related to research computing, security, and administrative systems. Below is an overview of the units and services associated with CMET: • Blackboard. The Library adopted the Blackboard course management system in 1999, and gradually expanded the service to interested users in academic departments. The system has grown to become one of the UO’s most heavily used enterprise platforms. • CMET Consulting provides instructional and research technology support to UO faculty. Working closely with the Teaching Effectiveness Program, CMET Consulting also provides faculty development workshops and on-demand training. • Image Services was established in 2002 to promote preservation of fragile materials through microfilming, digitization, and photographic reproduction. This unit assists faculty by scanning photographs, books and documents for research, presentations, and publications. It contributes to the digitization work of the Oregon Newspaper Project. 17 • Interactive Media offers multiple services including the design of dynamic websites, interactive learning tools, CD ROMS, and DVDs. This unit also provides usability consulting. • Classroom Technologies supports a wide range of teaching styles and presentation requirements by providing classroom design and audio/visual equipment services to the campus’ 160 general pool and joint-control classrooms; consults with faculty members and departments on technology purchases, and maintains and repairs installations throughout the campus. • Video Production and Distribution live-streams numerous campus events and makes available hundreds of hours of content of video-on-demand. This unit provides ongoing support for multi-site credit classes and remote interview uplinks for radio or television networks worldwide. II. A. 14. Library Website The UO Libraries website is the essential portal that provides access to library collections, as well as information about library facilities, personnel, services, and events. The website has evolved over time, with feedback from focus groups and user testing routinely influencing modifications in design and content delivery. Self-service functions accessible from the site have increased. II. B. Describe the nature and extent of the library’s collaborations on campus and with library, IT, and other communities. The UO Libraries actively collaborates with many partners within the university and throughout the world. As described in the library's vision statement: The UO Libraries will be an active and visible partner in the enhancement of learning and creation of new knowledge. We will engage students, faculty, and campus leadership in dynamic, user-centered processes for planning, delivering and assessing all programs, services, and information resources. II. B. 1. University collaborations There are a number of ways in which the library's commitment to engagement and collaboration plays out on campus through partnerships with various entities. Selected examples follow. a) University Governance Through committee appointments, the library is able to contribute to decision-making at strategic levels in the institution. The Dean of Libraries is a member of the Council of Academic Deans, the group charged with guiding the academic mission of the university. Under the direction of the Senior Vice President and Provost, the council provides leadership for matters that affect the university's academic programs, research, and outreach. This group 18 oversees the quality of these programs, and academic and budgetary planning. That the library's dean is an integral part of this team confirms the importance of the UO Libraries in the academic life of the university. The Committee for Academic Infrastructure was formed in 1997 to evaluate classroom facilities within the University's general classroom pool and to facilitate their improvement. Two representatives from the UO Libraries serve on this group's executive committee. This partnership enables the library’s classroom technology group to work closely with faculty, Capital Construction, the Registrar’s Office, Academic Affairs, and UO’s schools and colleges to design classroom spaces and provide equipment distribution services to support ever-changing instructional technology needs of the university community. The UO Libraries holds permanent ex officio roles on the Undergraduate Council and the Graduate Council. Both of these groups take broad, university-wide views of education, and participation enables the library to better understand and contribute to efforts to improve the curriculum, and the policies and regulations that govern education at the institution. The university, and in particular the University Senate, provides numerous opportunities for the involvement of library staff through appointment or election to committees. These committees enable individuals in the university to collaborate and advise on a wide range of matters affecting the institution. In FY 2010-11 Library staff members served on thirty-nine campus committees. b) University Divisions, Centers, and Services Information Services is the central technology department at the University of Oregon and a natural partner and collaborator with the library. The Dean of Libraries and the Chief Information Officer jointly convene a monthly meeting with key staff members to exchange information. Recently, the CIO attended a meeting organized by the library to discuss the computing infrastructure implications associated with data management plans accompanying grant proposals to the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for the Humanities. During winter term 2013, Information Services and the UO Libraries are hosting a listening tour to learn more about unit goals, challenges, and perceptions of the current technology environment. This input will be used to identify common themes and inform technology planning. The Oregon Folklife Network (OFN), housed in Knight Library, is a coalition of folklife stakeholders across the state and administered by the UO. Its mission is to provide wide access to folk arts by investing in traditional artists and cultures, and advancing learning opportunities for Oregonians. The network also receives funding from the Oregon Cultural Trust and the Oregon Arts Commission. By situating its hub at the UO, OFN brings higher education resources to Oregon’s communities by leveraging the strengths of the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, and the UO Libraries. 19 The Network Startup Resource Center (NSRC) was folded into the organizational structure of the UO Libraries in 2011. The NSRC was established at the UO in 1992 to provide technical assistance to organizations setting up computer networks in developing countries for collaborative research, education, and international partnerships. Over the past twenty years, the NSRC has worked with universities, research institutes, internet service providers, non- governmental organizations, governmental and intergovernmental agencies, and industry to help develop networks and cyber-infrastructure resources in Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America/Caribbean, and the Middle East. The NSRC is partially funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and Google, with additional contributions from dozens of public and private organizations. The relocation of the NSRC into the library will be transformative, enabling it to make more content available through the network, in addition to the technical infrastructure service it already provides. Summerbridge is a program of Services for Student Athletes that brings incoming freshmen athletes to campus for four weeks immediately following graduation from high school to take courses and work out with their various teams. For a number of years, the UO Libraries has provided instruction as part of Summerbridge, and the collaboration has become a successful component of the program. The UO Libraries has worked extensively to bring library resources into programming offered through University Housing. Library exhibits have been mounted in display areas located in the residence halls, and subject specialists have participated in the popular Community Conversations series. This series features topical events presented in engaging environments, such as discussion panels, debates, field trips, and author talks. c) Academic Departments and Programs The UO Libraries’ twenty-nine subject specialists serve as primary liaisons with one or more academic departments or programs. The work of these individuals, which includes collection development, instruction, and research assistance, is often collaborative in nature and sometimes leads to joint projects. For example, the history subject specialist worked with African Studies Program faculty to develop the African Political Ephemera and Realia digital collection. These subject specialist/faculty relationships will be strengthened by the library’s new Faculty Outreach Initiative, an effort in which subject specialists will interview faculty, and document and share their findings. Subject Specialists play a significant role in the Freshman Interest Groups (FIG) program offered by the UO's First Year Programs to engage freshmen in academic life at the university. The program consists of cohorts of twenty-five first-year students who take two regular general education courses together. The small classes involve students in projects and assignments specific to each FIG and offer mentoring from the professor, a FIG academic assistant, an advanced undergraduate, and a librarian. The librarians work with FIG assistants to develop course-integrated projects that use library resources, and make fifty-minute presentations to 20 the class focused on specific resources for the project. In FY 2011 subject specialists made contact with 1500 FIG students. A collaboration between the library and the Department of Mathematics in 2012 resulted in the creation of an innovative student employee role termed “mathlete.” In addition to performing traditional library assistant duties, mathletes are trained to assist students in 100-level courses with their homework. This new student assignment was conceived by Science Library staff in the process of designing a new Mathematics Library space, in which the creation of an environment to foster success for lower division math students was a major planned outcome. The library's data services program has been enriched through collaborations with a number of UO stakeholders in the past few years. In FY 2009-10 the university conducted a needs assessment of science faculty to gather information about their data management needs. The process established relationships for future communication and helped foster partnerships with other university units: Information Services, Office for Research, Innovation and Graduate Education, and the Information Technology Support Services of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 2011, the dean, the Data Services Librarian, and a faculty member of the Computer and Information Science department attended the E-Science Institute organized by ARL, the Digital Library Federation, and DuraSpace to help research libraries develop a strategic agenda for e- research support in the sciences. This participation resulted in a report, "Cyber-infrastructure and Data Management Strategic Agenda," that contains a SWOT analysis, potential initiatives, a risk assessment, and organizational implications for the university. This document can assist in building more sophisticated services to support faculty. In September 2011, the UO Libraries participated in a successful bid for an IMLS grant, “Educating the New Generation of E-Scientists through Developing a Data Information Literacy Curriculum,” submitted by Purdue University. As part of the grant, two UO librarians agreed to work with a Landscape Architecture professor and his graduate students to assess their data management needs, and to develop, implement, and assess a Data Information Literacy curriculum to meet those needs. The outcome of this work will be presented online and at conferences in 2013. The following are examples of resources created by CMET, the Digital Scholarship Center, and other library units in collaboration with the UO faculty to meet instructional and research needs of the institution and the global scholarly community. • Ada, Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, an open access and open peer- reviewed publication of the Fembot Collective, is published and preserved by the University of Oregon Libraries. • Archaeology and Landscape in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia (2009) is an NEH- funded collaboration with Dr. Esther Jacobson-Tepfer, Art History, and the UO Infographics Lab, to develop a website documenting ancient archaeological monuments in Mongolia's Altai Mountains. The website features an inventory of monument classes, an interactive photographic archive, and an interactive map of the region. 21 • ChinaVine.org (2012) supports ChinaVine's mission in educating English-speaking audiences about China’s cultural heritage. The site offers interactive, online experiences with Chinese culture through text, photographs, and audio files. • The Electronic Music Interactive v2 (2009) website continues to be the essential electronic music primer for music students worldwide. CMET employed Flash and audio to present interactive examples of the basic concepts and techniques essential to the study of electronic music in the university curriculum. • Approximately 1,300 works from the permanent collection of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art were digitized and made publicly accessible in collaboration with the museum. • A Musket Simulation (2010) was developed for a history course which covers the strengths and weaknesses of weapons from the 15th Century to 1945. In this simulation, students can experience issues of accuracy, timing and weather which determine whether a musketeer will kill or be killed during battle. • The Oregon Petrarch Open Book (OPOB) is an ongoing web-based system devoted to the study and teaching of Petrarch’s Canzoniere. Initiated in 2003 by Dr. Massimo Lollini, Romance Languages Department, and published by the UO Libraries, the OPOB attracts contributions from scholars worldwide. The project received an American Council of Learned Societies grant in 2012 to transcribe key Petrarch works. • Initiated by Dr. Leslie Opp-Beckman, UO American English Institute, and supported by the U.S. Department of State, CMET produced Shaping the Way We Teach English, a video-rich training project for teachers of English as a second language and distributed by U.S. Embassies abroad. This project also includes the creation of video graphics, a CD interface, and CD, DVD and VHS cover graphics. • Program Development and Curriculum: In 2012, the UO received approval for an interdisciplinary graduate certificate in New Media and Culture (NMCC). Initially conceived by graduate students and faculty from several areas of campus, library staff were actively involved in the program proposal. Staff from the Digital Scholarship Center are teaching and developing curriculum to support the new certificate, and library administration is represented on the program’s executive board. • The Sports Marketing Animations project (2006) enabled students to study the nature of the fan experience and the impact of team allegiances upon the students' reactions to different types of competition. • Undergraduate Research: The UO Libraries collaborates with many academic departments and programs to support and encourage original academic research, scholarship, and creative expression by undergraduates. Examples include the library’s Undergraduate Research Award, an endowed program that provides substantial scholarships each year for outstanding undergraduate work; institutional repository support for preservation and access of theses, capstones, and terminal projects; publishing support for the open access Oregon Undergraduate Research (OUR) Journal; Teaching Effectiveness Program presentations; and media support for the annual Undergraduate Symposium. Library staff are currently consulting on a central 22 information hub for students and faculty who are looking for undergraduate research opportunities and support. • In response to a request from the UO Office of Admissions, CMET staff created recruitment advertisements using multiple interactive Flash ads that have appeared on Collegeview.com and Collegeconfidential.com. Using dynamic images and text, these ads promoted the UO to prospective students. • The UO Veterans Oral History Project is a web-based project coordinated by Alexander Dracobly, History, in collaboration with the library’s CMET and Special Collections & University Archives departments. The project was established in 2012 with the aim of documenting the military experiences of UO students and community members. II. B. 2. External Collaborations: Library, IT, and Other Communities a) Collaborative Projects The library's collaborations with campus partners sometimes reach beyond the institution because scholarly research is often conducted within regional or even international networks. Selected examples of those partnerships are noted below. • The library has recently entered into a partnership with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which approves all local government comprehensive planning documents. DLCD will upload its official digital copies of these documents into the library’s Local and Regional Document Archive, eventually resulting in an exhaustive, publicly accessible collection of these fundamental local plans. • A group organized by the NSRC, the UO Libraries, the National Archives of Senegal (NAS), and the Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar came together at the university in 2012 to assist in the creation of a digital archives of colonial era documents managed by the NAS. The effort also received sponsorship from Google, the NSF, and O’Reilly Media. • In 2002, the library collaborated with thirty-five institutions to establish the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA) to provide enhanced access to archival and manuscript collections in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington through a union database of finding aids. In 2007, the NWDA became a program of the Orbis Cascade Alliance. • Created in collaboration with the Oregon Arts Commission (OAC), the library’s Oregon Percent for Art digital collection is comprised of selected images and documentation from the commission’s Percent for Art in Public Places program. The project was initially funded by an LSTA grant received by the UO Libraries in 2005. The OAC has continued to supply the library documentation to add to the database and further enhance the appreciation of the state’s public art. • The digital collection, Building Oregon: Architecture of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest, includes in its content the documentation of historic works regularly supplied by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. The City of Eugene’s 23 planning office has also supplied content for this resource. In 2012, the Oregon State University Library received an LSTA grant to create a mobile version of Building Oregon. • The UO Libraries has a strong history of collaboration with the tribal communities of the Pacific Northwest. The primary purpose of the Southwest Oregon Research Project, which began in 1995, is to gather photocopies of widely scattered and overlooked original documents pertaining to the history of the native peoples of greater Oregon. Through the agency of Native Americans themselves, the archive and continuing project allows scholars to continue to research and rewrite histories of colonization that have been imposed upon native peoples. The digital collection, Picturing the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Tribes, is a collaboration with the Tamastslikt Culture Institute (TCI) of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. This collection, produced in 2003, presents 250 digital images from the library’s Major Lee Moorhouse photograph collection of 7,000 photographs. Moorhouse, a Pendleton Indian Agent for the Umatilla Indian Reservation, photographed Native American life in the Columbia Basin from 1888 to 1916. In consultation with Special Collections & University Archives, the TCI selected items for inclusion in the collection, and supplied the cultural context and the vocabulary for describing the images. b) Memberships Research libraries are rapidly becoming understood as multi-institutional entities, because the current model of the library as a stand-alone provider to the university is obsolete. This was a key finding of the 2008 Council on Library and Information Resources publication, "No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century.” Through strategic memberships, the UO Libraries has become part of multi-institutional networks that dramatically increase its capacity to serve its primary constituency as well as larger regional and national communities. The collaboration with the Orbis Cascade Alliance (the Alliance) is deep and forms an important component of the strategic direction to build the multi-institutional library. Over the years, the Alliance membership has grown significantly and the close working relationships and increasing level of trust between members has enabled the consortium to advance an agenda that is shaping the development of a multi-institutional library. This trend is particularly evident in the process currently underway to develop a shared integrated library system, led by the consortium’s Shared ILS Implementation Team, in which UO library staff members are key participants. Sharing this common infrastructure will greatly facilitate efforts to build collaborations in the areas of discovery, collection development, technical services and assessment. Alliance teams are preparing for a future when many tasks, such as authority control, ILL, cataloging, and materials selection, can be consolidated at the consortial level. Other strategic memberships include the following: National Advocacy and Research • Association of Research Libraries • Coalition for Networked Information 24 • Council on Library and Information Resources • EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative • New Media Consortium • OCLC Research Library Partnership Information Access and Preservation • Center for Research Libraries • CLOCKSS • Portico • Public Library of Science • Program for Cooperative Cataloging • SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics) • WEST: Western Regional Storage Trust • arXiv Library Collaborations • Greater Western Library Alliance • OCLC: Online Computer Library Center • Orbis Cascade Alliance • Pacific Rim Digital Library Alliance There are still some important and relevant organizations to which the library does not yet belong: among these are the HathiTrust, the Digital Preservation Network, the Digital Library Federation, and LOCKSS. This is primarily an issue of limited capacity, not lack of interest. As one of the smaller ARL and AAU members, the UO Libraries is limited in the human and financial resources it can commit at the national level. III. USE OF COLLECTIONS AND SERVICES III. A. COLLECTIONS. Describe the use of the collections by various constituents. What, if any new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? III. A. 1. Local Print Collections The initial circulation of print materials in FY 2012 was 179,327, a decrease of 1.7% from the previous year, following nine years of much larger decreases. The circulation count including renewals totaled 274,327, down 11.5% from the previous year. In the past decade, total circulation has fallen by 43 percent. Within this downward trend are some positive indicators. While student use has decreased, checkouts by faculty and staff have shown some increase. Also, the use of new books is still relatively high: the probability of a new acquisition circulating within five years is approximately 50 percent. 25 III. A. 2. Electronic Collections The use of electronic resources continues to grow and is a primary reason for the decline in use of print resources. Approximately 85 percent of the library-provided content used in FY 2012 was in electronic format. Of this total, over 70 percent was in the form of full-text article downloads. UO produced digital collections (circulation estimated), e-reserves, and e-books make up the rest of e-content usage. One response to the increasing use of electronic resources is to employ tools like BrowZine, an app that unites articles from databases into complete journals, then arranges them by subject on a library-branded newsstand. III. B. Core Services. Describe the use of core library services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? III. B. 1. Use of Reference and Research Services The UO Libraries is evolving its approaches to reference and research support in response to the university's changing methods of research and instruction. Although the total number of reference transactions (one-on-one instruction) continues to drop both locally and nationally, most of the decline is with in-person visits. Virtual interactions via the web, chat, and e-mail have increased significantly over the past five years. The decline in in-person use of service points is substantial. For example, the number of in- person or telephone reference questions in FY 2008 totaled 47,390. By FY 2012, that number was 28,385, a decline of 40 percent. The reasons for this decline include the availability of online alternatives to reference sources, user-searched full-text article databases, and the rise in collaborative projects that in some cases have replaced the traditional research paper. Users no longer feel the same need as before for mediated reference and research assistance from librarians. The research questions that librarians now receive are more in-depth, requiring multiple resources and specialized tools not readily available online, and involving advice on complex research strategies. In part, this may explain the rise in the number of one-on-one consultations and extended reference sessions. Virtual reference via e-mail, remote chat, and text messaging continues to accelerate. In FY 2008, e-mail and remote chat reference transactions totaled 3,371; in FY 2012, this number totaled 12,345, a 73 percent increase in a few years. The ubiquity of computing devices (e.g., laptops, tablets, smart phones, etc.), improved wireless coverage on campus, and user expectation for anytime/anywhere service have made it natural for users to want to engage librarians electronically. Virtual approaches to reference assistance will increase as personal computing devices multiply and wireless coverage continues to expand. 26 The library expects these trends to grow, and has explored initiatives in anticipation. The library collaborated with the UO’s InfoGraphics Lab to create a library component embedded within UOregon, the official mobile app of the University of Oregon. Reference librarians in the Knight Library are exploring other methods to reach patrons, such as stationing themselves in other parts of the library. Science Library subject specialists, while continuing such traditional activities as reference, instruction, faculty outreach, and research assistance, are also broadening the scope of their work to include imbedding in science courses, interacting with UO science literacy programs, as well as with the UO’s STEM outreach programs with the K-12 community. In the new and renovated Science Commons and Research Library, plans are also being made to develop programming for the UO STEM community and the Eugene/Springfield-area community at large. III. B. 2. Instruction & Outreach The UO Libraries offers an increasingly diversified instruction program across a variety of disciplines and specialized programs that has expanded due to strong campus outreach and UO enrollment increases. Classroom presentations have increased from 649 in FY 2002 to 1,084 in FY 2012, with 16,650 participants. Freshman Interest Groups instruction included sixty-five sessions with 1,500 students. The Library has an excellent relationship with the campus Composition Program and provides library sessions for over 90% of the WR 123 Research Writing classes reaching 750 students. The Library is also a partner in the “Academics at UO” presentations for the 2,500 parents who participate in the IntroDUCKtion program held during the month of July. The library's strong outreach efforts and alliance with UO First Year Programs, Student Affairs offices, and other campus partnerships will continue to strengthen instruction activities. The creation of a new librarian position with responsibility for academic engagement in the new Global Scholars Residence Hall was developed through a close partnership with Residence Life. III. B. 3. Resource Sharing The UO community continues to rely heavily on other libraries’ collections for print materials. In FY 2002, the library borrowed 40,140 materials; in FY 2012, the library borrowed approximately 73,000 items, a substantial increase over the decade. The Resource Sharing unit is also responsible for on campus document delivery. This service continues to grow and improves the use of the collections. The unit endeavors to supply users with requested materials no matter where the material is located and provides fast, efficient and customer- centered support. The high degree of effectiveness of the resource sharing operations supports continued efforts to strengthen the shared regional collection, including efforts to build collaborative e-book collections. 27 III. B. 4. UO Libraries Website Use The UO Libraries Website receives approximately 3 million virtual visits per year. This use is consistent with prior years, although exact year-to-year comparisons are challenging due to changes in software and collecting methodology. The current website design was launched in fall 2006. A major feature of that design was the incorporation of a single search box, a result of the library’s implementation of meta-search software for its databases. A new website design is slated to launch in June 2013. New features will include additional home page functionality requested by users (e.g., hours of all branches), audience-based navigation, updated graphics, and rotating features with thematic emphases on First Year Experiences in the Library, Learning Spaces, Instructional Technology, and Student Employment. III. C. Instructional Technology. Describe the use of the library's instructional technology services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? Instructional technology services are thoroughly integrated into the UO Libraries mission and portfolio. The library administers Blackboard; student technology (labs, checkout equipment, etc.); classroom audiovisual systems; video production and distribution; videoconferencing and capture for multi-site telecourses and campus events; and development of interactive learning objects and web environments. The Libraries play a critical role in planning and support for the UO’s emerging online and hybrid learning environment. III. C. 1. Use of Instructional Technologies The number of Blackboard course sites grew to 7,567 in FY 2012 for an 8.9 percent increase over the previous year. The number of students enrolled in these sites grew by 18 percent. Blackboard is one of the most heavily used web services on campus. At one point, there were 15,000 people logged in to Blackboard—more than half of all the people in the UO community. A daily usage record occurred on May 7, 2012: 414 GB and 1,506,156 pages of traffic. The Blackboard license expires in 2015, and a university committee chaired by the library dean is exploring alternative learning management systems. CMET Consulting provides UO faculty and graduate teaching fellows with workshops, training, and instructional technology support, including, but not limited to Blackboard, student response systems, media digitization, WordPress, the UFoliO eportfolio pilot project and other emerging technologies. CMET Consulting also assists graduate students with formatting electronic theses and dissertations as a part of the library’s open access initiatives. The unit assisted with the transition from library e-reserves service by developing instructions for uploading articles to Blackboard with a copyright clearance checklist. CMET’s Classroom Technology Support unit maintains equipment installations in general pool and joint-controlled classrooms, and delivers presentation equipment to classrooms on a daily 28 and hourly basis. The staff maintains a database of classrooms searchable by building and equipment type, a resource frequently consulted by the Registrar's office and academic departments. In FY 2011, large classroom infrastructure improvements included projects in the Chiles Business Center, Anstett Hall, Fenton Hall, and the HEDCO Building. Approximately twenty small classroom technology projects were also undertaken. Approximately 347 classroom repair requests were resolved. Image Services engaged in a diverse range of imaging projects. In addition to faculty projects, the unit digitized the entire run of the UO's Oregana yearbooks and university catalogs. It granted use/reprint permissions to researchers from other institutions, national publications and media outlets, cultural and governmental institutions, and several textbook publishing companies. Image Services continues to microfilm over 120 daily Oregon newspapers, as part of the Oregon Newspaper Project. CMET's Interactive Media collaborated closely with UO faculty, instructors, staff, and students, to develop several interactive learning tools, provided in-depth consulting to UO colleges, schools and departments, and enabled student employees to get hands-on experience working in a professional, academic environment. The video production and distribution unit of CMET live-streamed numerous events, including convocation, UO Senate meetings, and other selected lectures and events. Between the Tandberg Content Server (TCS) and the UO Channel, CMET made hundreds of hours of content available as video-on-demand. There are currently 500 programs available on the TCS, and 493 videos from 64 UO schools, departments, and organizations. CMET provided ongoing support for twenty credit-bearing telecourses in FY 2012—over 530 hours of instruction. CMET also continued to produce language teaching videos as part of the UO's ongoing partnership with the American English Institute and the U. S. Department of State. CMET continued weekly production of UO Today, a televised interview program produced in collaboration with the university's Oregon Humanities Center. CMET staff facilitated thirty remote-interview uplinks for radio or television networks worldwide. It videotaped dozens of on-campus lectures, panel discussions, and presentations, and coordinated dozens of videoconferences with sites around the world. Content consisted of job interviews, class guest lectures, business meetings, and conference presentations. Public areas of the UO Libraries use a learning commons service model. The library provides 220 computers in its own buildings, and provides ten laptops for checkout. In 2012, the Library Systems department assumed additional responsibility for computing labs in the Erb Memorial Union, McKenzie Hall, and Klamath Hall, equipped with a total of 215 computers. 29 III. C. 2. Instructional Technology Trends The library has been a leader and an active collaborator in campus instructional technology development, and must continue to be productive in its most strategically useful roles. Campus organizational structures for instructional technology are needed that employ both centralized and dispersed control as appropriate; encourage collaboration, communities of service, and effective referral and communication; and are flexible and easily adaptable to shifting technologies and user demand. The library has identified the following trends, and is monitoring them for implications for planning in future services and programs. Technology trends influence all library services. • Users are seeking convenience in their information searching, and will prefer providers who can supply immediate and easy access. Responding to this strong preference entails just-in- time, ubiquitous availability of relevant information. • Mobile technology use among university students is accelerating, as is their demand for mobile library apps. A 2011 EDUCAUSE report notes a 60 percent growth between 2009 and 2011 in the percentage of undergraduates using their mobile devices to access library and general campus services. Students want apps for renewals, holds, and recommended title searches from the library, as well as access to the learning management system, and general communication services from the university. • Demand is increasing for online, distance, and hybrid education initiatives in higher education. The UO must be able to compete in this environment. The deployment of MOOCs, flipped classrooms, and game-based learning, and other approaches to teaching and learning will place greater demands on the library’s limited resources. In addition to enhancing online environments, the library will be required to continue and enrich its on- campus efforts. • The demand for accessibility to electronic resources by individuals with disabilities is required, not only for library websites, but also for vendor-produced resources such as e- texts and learning management systems. • The use of data mining and data analytics in instruction and research is another trend in which the library will likely play a major role in facilitating faculty adoption. • Many students and faculty are still catching up in their digital media literacy. All need help in understanding their rights, roles and responsibilities in an online world: managing their digital security, using technological tools for organizing their research and communication, and making wise and effective use of social media. • The demand for different modes of printing output, such as 3D printing and rapid proto- typing, will increase. The library has identified five strategic objectives to guide its near-term planning for educational technology: • Improve mobile interfaces to library services 30 • Deploy new educational technologies based on user demand • Develop new services to help users manage their digital content • Accelerate the creation of digital resources • Identify and address priorities for digital preservation III. D. Library Facilities. Describe the use of core library services. What, if any, new patterns are emerging and what implications do these trends have for future planning? The UO Libraries consists of eight physically separate libraries. From fall term 2006 to fall term 2012, the use of library facilities rose 29 percent, as measured by door counts. UO's student FTE increased 20 percent during this time period. The increase can be attributed largely to the conversion of traditional library spaces into university classrooms, labs (such as the Cinema Studies Lab), and more inviting spaces for collaboration, study, and presentation. The library is still very much at the center of student life. IV. STAFFING IV. A. Introduction The current composition of the library staff demonstrates the commitment of the UO Libraries to the fundamental services that make it a valued partner in fulfilling the university’s mission. Collection building, cataloging, instruction, reference, and research consultation continue to be hallmarks of the library’s service. Staffing also reflects the new directions into which the library has evolved over the past twelve years in an effort to respond to emerging needs and trends within the academy. Today teaching is likely to involve video conferencing; collection building may be patron-driven; cataloging may be vendor-generated; and reference assistance may be transacted by e-mail or chat. IV. B. Faculty: Describe the different responsibilities of faculty, and how those responsibilities are changing. IV. B. 1. Background: Faculty Status of Librarians To appreciate the very recent changes in the status and designation of library faculty, it is important to understand the circumstances that led to the revision. The University of Oregon Libraries has two categories of faculty: Officers of Instruction (OI) and Officers of Administration (OA). In 1980, the librarians, who had been OIs until that point, were re-designated as OAs, and thus removed from the tenured ranks. This change released librarians from the promotion and retention requirements that governed tenured faculty, which often diverted librarians from their primary responsibilities and were, in many cases, unreachable. Revised criteria were broader and more realistic. While the new status retained certain benefits associated with OIs, it made librarians unique among OAs by having multi-year contracts, the ability to hold academic rank, eligibility for sabbatical leave, and designated representation in the UO Senate. 31 This hybrid status created some ambiguities however. For example, when the UO Senate undertook a review of its legal standing, it was unclear if librarians as OAs could be considered members of the “statutory faculty.” And even though librarians might be treated the same as teaching faculty in matters of salary increases, they were not always eligible for certain faculty awards and grants. The situation was complicated further in 1996 when a number of unclassified positions on campus, formerly classified as management, were added to the ranks of the faculty as Officers of Administration. In the library, this change added fourteen new positions to the “library faculty.” Furthermore, the UO Libraries also began to add professional positions whose qualifications did not require the MLS, but were still classed as ranked OAs. In 2010, the dean initiated a plan to clarify the faculty status of UO's librarians, and which would separate the ranked library faculty from the rest of the OAs in the library and campus. Moving librarians to the category Career Non-tenured Teaching Faculty (NTTFs) made the most sense. This change would ensure that many features of the librarians’ current status would be retained, including promotion criteria emphasizing professional service and publications, “up or out” promotion to associate rank, multiple-year contracts, participation in faculty governance, the ability to teach credit courses, and the ability to pursue research interests through sabbaticals. This change took effect in January 2012 for ranked library faculty members holding the MLS degree, following a task force recommendation and approval by the UO administration, the University Senate, and the Oregon University System administration. In March 2012, United Academics of the University of Oregon filed union authorization cards signed by a majority of UO tenure-track, non-tenure-track, and research faculty authorizing the creation of a collective bargaining unit under the auspices of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). IV. B. 2. Evolving Roles While the overall numbers of ranked faculty (i.e., NTTF librarians) have remained stable since the 1998 program review, the nature and scope of these positions has changed, largely in response to the transition to the digital environment. The past twelve years have seen a shift of ranked faculty out of units associated with Collection Services (e.g., Acquisition, Cataloging, Preservation, Serials, and Collection Development) into other areas—many of which did not exist in 1998. The advent of the electronic journals, full-text databases and e-books has necessitated devoting resources to licensing and contracts. The growth and development of the library’s digital collections and the expansion of scholarship into the digital realm have raised the need to create services such as data curation and management, institutional repositories, intellectual property and copyright, open access publishing, and the digital collection creation. In 2012, the library announced the creation of the Digital Scholarship Center in response to these emerging needs on campus. Four ranked faculty transferred from other units in the library to work in this new department. The largest change in staffing composition over the past twelve years has been among the OAs, the unranked professionals. This group has increased from eighteen positions in 1998, to over twenty-nine FTE in 2012. Specialists include the Director of Academic Technology, Web 32 Applications Design Architect, and the Director of Organizational Development and Human Resources. Technology has also had a profound impact on library processes, services, and collections. Library faculty must be able to function effectively in a networked environment. They must have a thorough understanding of software used to search different databases, programs used to create bibliographies, equipment used to deliver electronic files, and packages used to create Web-based courses. Subject specialists must be able to keep up with the accelerated rate of change in database content and construction. They must be able to accommodate the changing classroom technologies and pedagogical approaches used by the academic community, and they must stay up to date on the best means to assist users find the best resources in an increasingly complex information environment. In the Collection Services department, faculty members have shifted away from creating catalog records, to the work of supervising and managing the staff and processes associated with bibliographic control. The near future for Collection Services librarians will be strongly characterized by higher level management functions, including managing and overseeing the work of highly trained paraprofessionals, training staff in sophisticated online cataloging tools, coordinating outsourcing contracts, monitoring quality control processes, overseeing adherence to national cooperative cataloging standards, and developing procedures to process the materials acquired in an increasingly diverse array of formats. IV. C. Classified Staff: Describe the different responsibilities of classified staff, and how those responsibilities are changing. The UO Libraries employs eighty-nine classified employees, the largest group of permanent employees in the library. Classified staff members are represented by the Service Employees International Union which is responsible for negotiating their salaries and benefits. Classified staff members have primary responsibility for the hiring, training, management, and mentoring of student assistants. These student supervisors are responsible for prioritizing work, managing the student budget and providing support and disciplinary action when necessary. Classified staff members assume leadership roles within the library, serving on advisory committees, coordinating with other library units to complete projects, streamlining workflows to optimize organizational and departmental resources, and training and sharing expertise with other employees, patrons, and student workers. The responsibilities of classified staff members have evolved with the changing needs of the library. Duties often include tasks that, in previous years, were completed by librarians. A majority of classified staff members are at the highest level of classification and are expected to work independently with comprehensive skills and knowledge to set priorities and manage workflows. 33 Classified staff members are increasingly taking on more responsibilities within the library. These duties include, but are not limited to the following: • Direct patron services. Some of these duties include circulation and stacks management; equipment and media maintenance and checkout; consulting and training of faculty members working on collaborative projects; management of interlibrary loan operations; reader services in Special Collections & University Archives; reference desk consultations and research assistance; planning, designing and setting up exhibits; and direct user support in CMET, computer labs, and campus classrooms. • Technical services. Tasks include physical and electronic materials ordering and processing; database and membership procurement, verification, and payment; preservation and repair; cataloging in established and emerging formats, such as RDA and digital metadata formats; database maintenance; hardware and software support; classroom and conferencing systems design and installation; and project management. Classified staff members provide the majority of original metadata and cataloging for resources acquired and produced by the library. This includes establishing name authority records and identifying the need for new subject headings to be added to the national Library of Congress Subject Heading list. • Information technology services. Classified staff members support the library’s IT infrastructure, by maintaining library systems, staff and student computers, and providing programming support for evolving library, instruction and scholarship systems. They also provide all of the technical support for Blackboard. • Conservation and preservation. The preservation and conservation of library materials is supported by professionally trained classified staff who not only provide support for the university collections but have been called upon to provide services to other OUS institutions and private individuals. • Content development and media production. Staff are involved with reformatting and digitization; web and interactive media development; website maintenance; video production and distribution; photography and graphic arts. • Administrative services. These services include guest reception; scheduling and managing student workers; scheduling and coordinating meetings; personnel and payroll management; purchasing and accounting; coordination of shipping and receiving services; and facilities management. • Work Coordination. Classified staff members are increasingly responsible for high level project management, including organizing and prioritizing work, and working collaboratively with others to produce a product or service. Staff may oversee the work of lower level employees, students, and volunteers by assigning and reviewing work, adjusting work assignments and schedules and providing orientation and training to employees, students and volunteers. 34 IV. D. Student Employees The UO Libraries is heavily dependent upon student assistants and employs approximately 300 part-time student workers (58 FTE). Funding is a blend of budgeted operations, wage subsidies through the federal College Work Study program, gifts, and grants. The library actively encourages MLS students to apply for internships, practicum, or field work experiences. An endowed program, the Thomas Internship, provides stipends for selected MLS student interns. IV. E. Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs) Library Administration allocates GTF positions to library departments using an annual competitive proposal process. The library has authorization for up to four 0.5 FTE “institutional priority” GTF positions, for which the Graduate School supports tuition waivers. Additional positions may be established through strategic partnerships with academic departments. In these cases, the academic department allocates one of its GTF positions with a tuition waiver; the library covers the stipend. IV. F. Volunteers The library has an active and organized program for screening, training, and employing volunteers in a variety of assignments, largely in Special Collections & University Archives. Typical tasks involve processing manuscript collections, supporting the records management program, and reviewing gift books. IV. G. Investment: Describe opportunities/support for professional development & training IV. G. 1. Introduction The UO Libraries seeks to become a learning organization. An important part of moving the organization in this direction is providing adequate funding and opportunity for staff to engage in professional development and training. While additional funding in this area could undoubtedly be well used, anecdotal evidence suggests that the library compares favorably with its peers in the amount of resources accessible for this purpose. IV. G. 2. Supported travel The UO Libraries spends an average of $132,000 each year to support travel related to professional development and training. This expenditure covers in-state, out-of-state, and foreign travel, and includes registration fees. Most supported travelers are NTTFs, whose involvement in professional organizations is related to fulfilling the requirements for contract renewal and promotion. Currently, each NTTF librarian may receive funding for up to two out- of-state trips during the academic/fiscal year. For these two trips, reimbursement for pre-sixth year review faculty is a maximum of $1,000 per trip if the individual has committee 35 assignments, speaking obligations, elected office, etc. For attendance only, the individual may receive a maximum of $800 per trip. For post-six-year review NTTF librarians, the maximum per trip is $800 if the individual has committee assignments, speaking obligations, elected office, etc. For attendance only, the individual may receive a maximum of $500 per trip. Directed travel is funded at the maximum level. This type of support is applied to travel that is determined by Library Administration to be essential or extremely beneficial to the organization. Faculty members who represent the library at a meeting are expected to present a summary report. Other library staff may also receive maximum funding for job related training. Approximately 60 percent of the total financial support made available for travel and professional development comes from library general funds and income. The remaining 40 percent comes from grants, gift endowments, awards and individual Professional Support Accounts (PSAs). IV. G. 3. Solari and High Jump Awards The Library Faculty Grants and Awards Committee, an elected body, administers several awards. Each year, the committee solicits nominations for the Richard and Mary Corrigan Solari Faculty Fellowship Award and the Richard and Mary Corrigan Solari Incentive Award. Meritorious recipients of the fellowship award, which serves to “reward and encourage noteworthy contributions by library unclassified employees to the university, the region and the international community of scholars,” may use the $3,000 award to fund professional development. The recipients of the incentive award may be awarded funds up to $5,000, designed to support projects and education aligned with individual professional development goals and the library’s strategic directions. The Grants and Awards Committee also administers the High Jump Award—a peer recognition program that recognizes exceptional contributions, achievements, and endeavors of all employees in all categories. Recognition targets both one-time/ad hoc projects and the ongoing work that sustains the Libraries' role as primary information provider to the UO community. IV. G. 4. Professional and Organizational Development Fund The Grants and Awards Committee also takes applications for the Professional and Organizational Development Fund in the fall and the spring. This endowment typically generates enough income to allow the committee to distribute several thousand dollars per year towards faculty participation in professional conferences, workshops and meetings, as well as the pursuit of professional research projects. All library faculty members are eligible to apply, but preference is given to librarians preparing for their six year review, and to applicants who did not receive a grant the previous year. In December 2011, library faculty members were also given non-recurring Professional Services Accounts (PSA) of $1,000 that can be used 36 to underwrite travel and professional development opportunities. If a library faculty member teaches a course outside of the library for another school or college, a portion of the payment for the course is placed into the PSA. IV. G. 5. Employee Success Program (ESP) The ultimate goal of the newly created Employee Success Program is to help staff experience a high level of job satisfaction. The program will help set employee expectations, orient them to the context in which they are working, and provide a good introduction to the corporate culture. The program starts with initial contact from Human Resources and continues with a three-member Orientation Team: the immediate supervisor, a social guide, and a professional expectations guide. Several meetings with the Director of Library Organizational Development and Human Resources will take place to make sure that proper training, evaluations, and goals are set for the professional development of each employee. IV. H. Diversity IV. H. 1. How has the library addressed the campus goals related to diversity? The UO Libraries published a comprehensive diversity plan in 2007, using the university’s broad definition: diversity “includes, but is not limited to, differences based on race, ethnicity, national origin or citizenship, gender, religious affiliation or background, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic class or status, political affiliation or belief, and ability or disability.” In 2012, all university units were asked to prepare a five year summary for the Office of Institutional Equity and Inclusion. Highlights of the library’s plan include the following: • Diversity-themed programs for library staff have been one of our strengths. We have integrated these types of program sessions into our annual staff in-service day, and they have become popular and well attended. These programs contributed to developing a culturally responsive community and improving the campus climate. • Another area of strength has been producing diversity-themed exhibits that incorporate unique materials from Special Collections & University Archives, or build on the talents and interests of staff members with expertise in particular areas. The Library also collaborated with Facilities Services and its Diversity Committee in developing an exhibit showcasing photographs of diverse Oregon workers who helped build the university’s buildings. • Progress has been made in diversifying collections with both major database purchases, and with the establishment of a separate diversity fund nomination program. The nomination process, open to UO faculty, staff, and students, enables more active participation in building our collections in as many diverse areas as possible. • The instruction program has included a number of significant diversity-themed partnerships with academic programs that support diverse populations. A few examples include “Hip Hop and Politics of Race” (Music and Ethnic Studies), “Mind and Society – 37 East and West” (Psychology and East Asian Languages and Literatures), and “Value and Values” (Business and International Studies). • The library has connected with diverse communities within the state in connection with its mission to preserve Oregon’s cultural heritage. Two recent projects include working with the Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Nordeste/Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United on managing its archives, and the Tribal Legacies Project, which has helped to bring tribal documents into the K-12 curriculum. IV. H. 2. What specific plans does the library have in place to increase the proportions of traditionally underrepresented groups? One of the library’s main diversity plan goals was the creation of a five-year hiring plan in 2010 to guide recruitment efforts (see Appendix B). The hiring plan, accompanied by another earlier document, “Best Hiring Practices,” describes what the library should look like in five years and includes specific steps to achieve those goals. The result is that screening committees are now more accountable for outreach efforts in the recruitment process, and these efforts are documented for the Office of Affirmative Action with each search. In addition, final screening committee reports to the Dean of Libraries specifically address aspects of diversity that each candidate would bring to the library. The result of these new recruitment and outreach efforts is mixed. More applicants from underrepresented groups in recent years have applied, but we have not always been able to make the hire. In 2012, on the other hand, eight searches resulted in hiring two new librarians from underrepresented groups. The library is in the process of updating the statistics in the hiring plan, which will help set new, realistic benchmarks. Among the library’s NTTFs, 69 percent are women and 17 percent are minorities. This latter percentage is approximately 2 percent above the average of availability for professional staff of color as reported in the latest available (2010-2011) ARL Annual Salary Survey. By comparison, the 2007 Diversity Plan notes that in 2006 only 5 percent of library faculty members were from underrepresented groups. This is a 12 percent increase within six years, and is about 5.3 percent higher than the rate for current administrative staff of color at the University of Oregon in fall 2012. The UO Libraries currently employs twenty-eight OAs. Of those, thirteen (46 percent) are women. Five of them (5.6 percent) are from underrepresented groups, a figure 6.1 percent below the campus average for this group of employees. While the library does not yet have specific plans in place for increasing the number of classified staff from underrepresented groups, recent recruitment and retention efforts have been successful. Currently, of a total of eighty-six classified staff, forty-nine (57 percent) are women, and ten (almost 12 percent) are from underrepresented groups. This is only slightly below the 12.7 percent reported for all UO staff of color for the 2012 fall term. 38 Current fall term 2012 enrollment figures for students from underrepresented groups on campus indicate that about 19.5 percent are ethnic minorities. This suggests a possible figure to use in developing a new five-year benchmark for numbers of permanent staff. V. FUNDING V. A. Describe the budget process. What impact has the library’s funding had on services and collections? On July 1, 2010, the University of Oregon adopted the Oregon Budget Model which embodies the basic principles of Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) for the schools and colleges. In this model, tuition revenue is distributed to the schools and colleges based on a formula related to majors, student credit hours, degrees awarded, etc. Since state appropriations are insufficient to fund the central services of the university, including the libraries, a tax is imposed on the schools and colleges to fund these services. For fiscal year 2011-12, one year after the rollout of the Oregon Budget Model for the schools and colleges, a process for allocating resources to central services was developed. While this process continues to be revised, the basic principle requires units to fully delineate what funding is needed for an “as is” or current service level budget, and then articulate any strategic funding needs separate from that. This has been a significant breakthrough from the UO Libraries’ perspective. In the past, campus units were not asked to submit a comprehensive budget proposal, and any increases or decreases to the allocations were generally made across the board. As a result, the library’s current service level needs, for collections in particular, were addressed only sporadically over the last decade, resulting in the need for serials cancellations every three to four years. In addition, while most required personnel related increases had been centrally funded, the library was responsible for self-funding the annual mandated step increases for classified staff. The result was a continual process of eliminating or under filling positions in order to cover a $30,000-$40,000 per year unfunded mandate. A process that allows the library to request current service level funding is a great step forward in transparency and decision-making. For the current fiscal year the library received most of the “as is” budget request, and the shortfall was accommodated using carried-forward funds. 39 The chart above illustrates the library’s position relative to the average of its peers in terms of the percentage of Education and General funds that are allocated to the libraries. The percentage is declining, but that is to be expected to some degree with enrollment growth, as increased tuition revenue needs to be primarily devoted to hiring faculty to teach the courses. Library costs do not escalate at the same rate with increased enrollment, although there are some linkages, such as enrollment-based database fees. The main funding problem is overall resources available to the campus, not the percentage that is allocated to the UO libraries. Nevertheless, UO’s ranking in the Association of Research Libraries’ investment index shows a pattern of decline over the last decade – even taking into account the broad scope of the UO Libraries’ portfolio. The ARL investment index is comprised of four metrics: • Total library expenditures • Salaries and wages for professional staff • Information resources (collections) expenditures • FTE professional plus support staff UO ranking in ARL investment index FY 2002-03 84 FY 2003-04 90 FY 2004-05 101 FY 2005-06 103 FY 2006-07 96 FY 2007-08 93 FY 2008-09 95 FY 2009-10 96 FY 2010-11 98 Internally, the library’s budget is broken down by source of funds (84 percent is general fund) and by organizational hierarchical unit. By regulation, different sources of funds must be kept separate. The library has chosen to create the non-fungible organizational silos. Each of these major operational sectors is budgeted separately, balanced separately at year end, and is responsible for positive or negative balances carried forward. The silos serve practical 40 managerial purposes and segregate collections and operational funds, which facilitates communication. UO Libraries Budget FY 2011-12 V. B. Describe the library’s fundraising program and grant-funded activity V. B. 1. Fundraising The UO employs a distributed fundraising structure that allows each of the major academic units, including the library, to have dedicated fundraising professionals. The library’s development staff includes a director who is responsible for major gifts, and one assistant who is responsible for fund management, donor communications, and events. The Director of Library Communications works closely with the fundraising staff on publications and publicity. For a small public research institution, the UO Libraries has had significant success in fundraising, particularly in the last decade. During the last capital campaign which ended in December 2008, the library received contributions totaling $19.7 million—nearly doubling the original goal of $10 million. Of this total, $11.2 million was invested in endowments, $7.1 million addressed current needs, and $1.4 million was deferred, including charitable trusts and annuities that will one day benefit the libraries. Highlights of that effort included three additional endowed positions, significant investments in digital collections, and financial support for the library’s instructional programs. In FY 2012, the library raised over $7 million in support of collections, technology, personnel, and facilities. That amount included a $5 million lead gift for a newly renovated and expanded Science Commons and Research Library. FY 11-12 Budget (including carry forward) General Library Operations Instructional Technology (CMS, classrooms) Collections & Access Law Library Operations Law Library Collections & Access Portland Lib & Learning Commons Total General funds $10,473,249 $1,821,138 $5,978,168 $1,579,892 $841,621 $678,234 $21,372,302 Indirect cost credits $111,159 $458,012 $569,171 Income (fees, fines, printing) $684,689 $48,139 $3,253 $82,402 $818,483 Service Centers $347,739 $52,787 $400,526 Grants $704,291 $704,291 Gifts/Endowment income $954,670 $706,254 $2,046 $213 $1,663,183 Total $13,275,797 $1,873,925 $7,190,573 $1,585,191 $841,621 $760,849 $25,527,956 41 Private Investments 2007 $1,250,048.35 2008 $6,167,886.44 2009 $2,196,661.33 2010 $2,966,087.04 2011 $2,749,350.09 2012 $7,684,986.69 The average over the past six years is $3,835,837/year. Current value of the library’s endowments is $21.5 million. The university is preparing for another campaign that will exceed $1 billion with preliminary goals addressing four major areas: programs, faculty support, student support, and facilities. The library’s program goals will focus on collections and technology. In terms of faculty support the library hopes to endow one additional faculty position in Special Collections & University Archives. The focus of student support will be an endowment for student assistants who work in the library. The library’s facility development goals include the new Science Commons and Research Library. Total Goal: $26,500,000 Current Use: $12,000,000 Endowment: $14,500,000 V. B. 2. Grant-Funded Activity Grant activity has been proceeding at a steady pace for the last several years. At present, the library manages eleven active grants. Two of these grants help fund the Network Startup Resource Center (NSRC). The NSRC is funded largely through the US Department of State and the NSF. The value of current grants for FY 2012, including NSRC was $2,871,840. In addition, there are four outstanding proposals valued at another $358,726. The library also participates in a Title VI National Resource Centers grant with the UO’s Center for Asian and Pacific Studies. The library’s grants also include a heavy emphasis on digitization of historical content, particularly Oregon newspapers. In 2009, the library received a $364,042 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and Library of Congress as part of the Chronicling America project. Matching grants have been received from the Oregon State Library, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, and the Oregon Heritage Commission. Additional grants have focused on film and audio preservation, data information literacy, Korean studies, and special collections processing. Eleven library grants were completed during FY 2011, and were valued over their lifetime at $3,600,470. Focus of these grants has broadened from traditional library and archival activities to large- scale digitization projects, cultural heritage preservation, film preservation and improved network capacity in developing nations around the world. The range of granting agencies has expanded from the Oregon State Library Library’s Services and Technology Act (LSTA) to include the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Oregon 42 Department of Parks and Recreation, the Oregon Community Foundation, the Korea Foundation, and the National Film Preservation Foundation. VI. PLANNING, EVALUATION, AND ASSESSMENT VI. A. Planning The library’s strategic plan includes six core strategic directions which were first articulated in 2009. The directions were developed through an iterative process involving the library council, and were reaffirmed in the 2012 summer planning retreat. That retreat focused on revising and updating measurable objectives associated with each strategic direction. Current activities associated with the strategic plan are occurring at several levels. Each department is expected to devise an action plan that links to the stated objectives and directions. Those departmental documents are posted to a planning site in the library’s intranet. Cross-departmental proposals are submitted to Library Administration for approval and funding. Current cross-departmental initiatives include creating a current-generation digital signage program that allows interactive functions, 3D video, and data visualization; conducting a one-year trial of the app Browzine; redesigning the library’s website based on extensive usability testing; conducting targeted user assessment aimed at graduate students; engaging in substantive and measurable outreach to teaching faculty; creating an “employee success program;” and increasing the number of minorities in applicant pools at all levels. The library is also actively engaged in the Orbis Cascade Alliance strategic agenda. Recently, the library has experimented with a light application of Balanced Score Card. This application has provided library staff with experience in developing quantifiable measures of progress. Several current initiatives have quantifiable metrics and indicators of success associated with them. 43 The library’s strategic plan would ideally be linked to the UO’s Academic Plan. That process has proved to be challenging, since the university plan is focused on enrollment, affordability, faculty quality, interdisciplinary research, and internationalization. The library can contribute to these broad goals, but many of the specific actions thus far have been associated with the schools and colleges, and the Office of Enrollment Management. In the future, it is likely that the institutional academic plan will have a strong focus on the AAU metrics. That may open up additional opportunities for the library to link its plan to that of the institution. VI. B. Personnel Evaluation All staff are evaluated according to their rank and union requirements. Discussions are underway with the new Director of Human Resources and Organizational Development concerning possible 360 reviews for all library staff. VI. B. 1. Classified Staff It is expected that classified employees will be evaluated annually on the employee’s hire anniversary date. The library is making efforts to improve the current 80 percent compliance rate. VI. B. 2. Officers of Administration It is expected that Officers of Administration will be evaluated annually in spring to facilitate the contract renewal process. VI. B. 3. Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) NTTF librarians are on a two- or three-year review schedule, as determined by rank. Assistant Librarians receive two-year contracts; Associate Librarians and Senior Librarians receive three- year contracts. Pre-Sixth Year Review NTTF librarians have two formal peer reviews for contract renewal by the Library Faculty Personnel Committee (LFPC) before the Sixth Year Review. The third review leads to promotion in rank and a three-year contract cycle or timely notice for unsuccessful candidates. In off-years individuals receive informal reviews by their supervisors, which then become part of the Sixth Year Review dossier. Post-Sixth Year Review NTTFs receive a formal review every sixth year which is similar to post-tenure review. Librarians are evaluated for contract renewal and promoted on the basis of three criteria: performance in their primary or major responsibilities, progress made on or successful completion of specific goals, and contributions to the profession. Contributors to the process include the immediate supervisor and the relevant Associate University Librarian. The library uses the standard campus-wide form for teacher evaluations. The evaluation and statements, along with letters of support from teaching faculty and colleagues within the profession, constitute the dossier that is sent to the LFPC for the formal peer review. 44 The LFPC consists of five elected peers, who each serve for two years. Committee members, who have already passed the Sixth Year Review, write a recommendation for consideration by the Dean of Libraries. The dean then makes a recommendation about renewal or promotion, and the file is then sent to the Senior Vice-Provost of Academic Affairs, for final review and the ultimate decision. See Appendix C for a complete description of ranked library faculty evaluation procedures, including merit and promotion criteria. VI. B. 4. Department Heads The Dean of Libraries administers an online feedback survey for department heads in the fall immediately following their most recent contract renewal. Staff members who report to that particular department head are asked to respond to a series of questions that address three areas: leadership, management, communication. Responses are confidential and are only seen by the Dean of Libraries and appropriate AUL. These results are summarized in a report to the department head, and are intended to be used as a developmental tool. The report identifies particular areas of strengths, as well as areas that may need improvement; this review does not become a formal part of the department head’s personnel file. VI. B. 5. Associate University Librarians The process for evaluating the administrative duties of the associate university librarians follows that of the department heads. VI. B. 6. Dean of the Libraries The evaluation of the Dean of the Libraries is managed by the Senior Vice President and Provost and conducted every five years. VI. C. Assessment Assessment activities are coordinated by the UO Libraries Assessment Team. VI. C. 1. Assessment Team The library’s Assessment Team was formed in 2005 following staff participation in the inaugural round of the ARL project, “Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches to Developing and Sustaining Effective Assessment.” The team has responsibility for conducting large-scale surveys and other data gathering efforts. It also assists library units and decision makers with survey design, conducting focus groups, and identifying appropriate metrics to meet their needs. 45 VI. C. 2. Assessment Tools Below are assessment tools the library uses and examples of the findings resulting from the use of these tools. a) Benchmarks The UO Libraries tracks trends and it benchmarks expenditures, staffing levels, and key service components against peer institutions. This data is presented in the University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report and Statistical Abstract, which are available in Scholars’ Bank, the institutional repository. In addition, a brief Quick Facts about the library is available on the public website and is sent annually to the UO Office of Institutional Research. Benchmarking indicates that UO Libraries’ funding remains substantially less than its peer groups, even when normalized for enrollment size. The per student expenditure trend at all institutions reflects relatively flat library budgets paired with significant enrollment growth starting in FY 2009. The greatest factor in the gap between the UO Libraries and its peers is in collections expenditure. In FY 2012, the UO ranked 103rd out of 111 ARL libraries in collections expenditure but third in items borrowed from other libraries. Building the multi-institutional library is one of the library’s key strategic directions and nearly half the requested items are received quickly from the library’s Orbis Cascade Alliance partners. The library has an effective resource sharing service; nevertheless, the gap between local demand and local investment far exceeds that at any other research library. b) User satisfaction surveys Every four to five years the University of Oregon Libraries participates in LibQual+, a national quality survey sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries. The survey was last administered in spring 2010. 46 One way of looking at the survey results is in terms of the “zone of tolerance.” This situates the users’ perceived level of service within the area defined by the minimum that they will accept and their desired level of service. It provides a value context for the perceived level of service. The graph below shows the placement of user perceptions of library service performance along the three major dimensions, for the 2010 survey compared to the results from the 2005 survey. With the exception of ‘affect of service,’ the library is closer to the minimum than the desired, and in the case of ‘information control,’ the library is very close to the minimum. ‘Library as Place’ shows the most change from 2005 to 2010. User open-ended comments from the survey confirm a growing dissatisfaction with library collections, the web site/discovery tools, and facilities. c) Observational studies The library regularly undertakes observational surveys to better understand library users. For example, several studies have been conducted to observe patron preferences in types of furniture and study spaces. This information will aid in meeting the increasing demand on library facilities resulting from enrollment growth. Using the information gained from the observations and other feedback mechanisms, policy changes have been made to optimize the use of individual and group study rooms in the Knight Library, to offer extended 24/5 and 24/7 hours during the weeks when most needed, to add electrical outlets in all campus libraries, to purchase new furniture and equipment, and to address some of the most pressing deferred maintenance problems. 47 d) Assessment examples • WebDev is a permanent work group charged with development and maintenance of the library’s Web presence. The group employs regular usability testing to improve the users’ virtual experience. • The UO Libraries assisted with the development of a campus wide educational technology survey and also developed and administered a smaller survey of faculty teaching in classrooms with newly installed instructional technology. The information gleaned from these surveys was used to improve library services to instructors, including installing help lines in major classrooms. • Special Collections & University Archives was one of nine partner institutions who tested and developed the “Archival Metrics Reading Room Research Questionnaire.” UO staff customized the generic version of the survey to elicit information about the user’s in- person experience. • The Reference and Research Services Department in the Knight Library conducted a quantitative assessment of its services to determine the level of complexity of questions asked; the number, time and duration of interactions; and the format (in- person, telephone, email, chat). The data has been used to adjust service desk staffing and scheduling. • Focus groups and a follow-up survey were administered regarding the Knight Library South Reading Room. This information was used to select additional furniture and to decide against installing exhibit cases in this prime study area. • The UO Libraries provides analyses for periodic academic program reviews and professional accreditation reviews. Information is provided regarding trends in materials expenditures; title counts in relevant call number ranges and growth in digital resources; instruction activity; technology consulting; and use of Blackboard. • In January 2013, the Assessment Team sponsored an idea-generating group session for UO graduate students to identify ways in which the library can better support the studies, research, and teaching of these students. One outcome of this session has been to provide students with assistance in managing and visualizing their data. • Library staff and patrons have several means of providing feedback on library services and policies. Patron suggestions and responses are posted publically in an online suggestion box. An online, internal unusual incident reporting system records major service or facilities problems, as well as patron incidents. VII. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: SUMMARY VII. A. What changes in demand are anticipated? Use of traditional services, including face-to-face reference, print circulation, and reserve use will probably continue to decline. Demand for some of these traditional services, such as reserve use, continues to decline to a point at which the service could be eliminated 48 completely. One exception to the decline in use of these services is interlibrary borrowing, which is expected to continue to increase annually. UO Libraries has one of the highest rates of interlibrary borrowing within the ARL, due to easy access to other resources and the fact that purchasing and licensing has not kept pace with local needs, among other factors. According to the most recent ARL statistics, the UO Libraries ranks 103rd in library collection expenditures, while it is ranked third in what is borrowed from other institutions. These statistics illustrate the disparity between demand for library resources and ability to purchase those resources. Demand for all forms of instruction has steadily increased. The number of classroom presentations jumped 25 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2012. Some of this increase is likely due to the library’s close association with first-year programs, a strong relationship with the Honors College, a sharp increase in the number of legal research presentations, and growing interest in Special Collections & University Archives due to increased description and access to collections. Demand for specialized library credit courses remains weak, except for carefully targeted curriculum. The libraries anticipate the demand for space to remain high due to significant increases in enrollment. The availability of quiet space and group space in all of the libraries is inadequate. For example, the Science Library has seen double-digit increases of students studying in the library over the past several years, which can be attributed to a phenomenal growth in the number of science majors. Some modest facility improvements have added flexibility and functionality to the space. In an effort to help with the classroom shortage, the library has allowed several rooms in Knight Library to be scheduled by the registrar during the day, but this has resulted in more pressure on remaining group study spaces. There is growing interest in production facilities and media labs due to the changing nature of research and instruction. The library manages the general use computer labs across campus and anticipates adding some additional production capabilities in the future. While the library has made many incremental changes in both services and space allocation to address changes in demand, the fact remains that the preponderance of space is still devoted to storing print resources. Several of the libraries have been able to convert space to accommodate students, but UO Libraries is seriously disadvantaged by the lack of an off-site storage facility. Participation in distributed print repositories has not yet produced the desired results. Even with the increasing demand for electronic resources, the demand for print materials persists. Demand will increase for library leadership in technology infrastructure and support. This includes the learning management system(s), instructional design services, web development, programming services and mobile tools, digital storage and preservation, data services, support for e-records management, video production, distributed education support, and visualization capabilities. 49 VII. B. Is the library staffed adequately to meet the needs of the campus (FTE as well as areas of expertise)? If available resources remain the same, how will the library respond to anticipated changes in use of services and collections? The UO Libraries is staffed at a level that is significantly below that of other public AAU institutions and other comparator groups. Inadequate staffing levels may be felt most acutely in the growth areas of classroom support, technology support, university archives including electronic records management, video production and distribution. Subject specialists are also overstretched. Most subject specialists cover multiple subject areas or, in some cases, an entire school or college. In focus groups, faculty members have expressed concern regarding the librarians’ abilities to provide the desired level of expertise due to so many responsibilities. Language expertise represents a significant challenge, even for common Romance languages. Staffing vacancies and reassignments have recently allowed the library to create its first Latin American subject specialist position with fluency in Spanish. Given the university’s growing emphasis on Latin American studies and Hispanic culture, this position will help to fulfill an area where the library has lacked expertise. For decades, the library had one subject specialist for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean studies. This year the library was able to reorganize and reassign responsibilities to create two subject specialist positions to cover East Asian languages. Other emerging language interests, such as Arabic, remain unaddressed. Language expertise in collection services is thinly spread (e.g., 1.0 FTE provides support for English, Romance languages, Germanic languages as well as e-books, DVD’s and video games). Future retirements will also have an impact on cataloging support for all formats and languages. The library has considerable expertise in the areas of metadata and content management, network and desktop computer support, web design and usability, assessment, and instructional technology. Expertise in the area of data management is gradually expanding. In addition to subject specific needs mentioned above, staff members have identified the need for general skill sets that have become more crucial in today’s work environment, including project management and programming. Until last year, the library lost positions due to a funding model that did not address current service levels. Mandatory step increases for classified staff were not covered centrally, and this obligation cost the library between one and two positions every year. The library has since added some positions due to recent budget increases for operations, and the transfer of some IT responsibilities from Information Services to the library. The new budget process allows for a presentation that accounts for the costs associated with maintaining current service levels. Emerging needs are more likely to be addressed through a reallocation of existing resources, or through private funding. 50 VII. C. Could the services and collections be improved through additional collaboration with internal or external units or organizations? One area of uncertainty relates to the development of collaborative technical services within the Orbis Cascade Alliance. As one of the largest member libraries, it is possible that the UO could assume some level of compensated support for the consortium. Ideally, any collaboration would be constructed to have a net advantage for all participants. Although participating in and managing collaborative programs is perhaps this library’s greatest strength, there remain opportunities to explore new partnerships that could strengthen library services. The library has not yet participated in shared approval plans, which are becoming more common among consortia. It is possible that this effort will develop as part of the Alliance’s strategic agenda. The UO shares regional depository responsibility for federal documents with Oregon State University, Portland State University, and the Oregon State Library. Similar types of cooperative agreements with respect to state and local documents could be very useful. There has been scant consideration of sharing reference and instructional efforts and there are opportunities for more significant collaborations with K-12 programs. But with the proliferation of online tutorials and courses, there could be some opportunities in this regard. Within the state, there are also possibilities to share responsibility for special collections, digital collections, and historical archives. Robust collaborations, while of enormous benefit to the partners, often produce a tension between the obligation to support the consortial agenda with staff and financial resources, and the need to attend to local priorities. So far the cost benefit for participation in its various consortial arrangements has been very favorable, and the library is encouraged to explore additional shared programs. VII. D. What steps are currently being taken to improve efficiency? Should the library take additional steps? There are several areas in which the UO Libraries could achieve higher operational efficiency. Library Council members suggested the following areas for improvement: Documentation: The UO Libraries maintains a staff intranet, but documentation of procedures and policies are often kept on individual hard drives. Documenting processes and sharing them via the intranet will help with training new employees, provide a resource when staff are away from work and cut down on the need to create new documents when existing material could be revised. Technology: Additional investment in software for managing information related to human resources and personnel (i.e., electronic time-sheets and assessment data) could yield significant efficiencies for supervisors and human resources staff. For library users, the organization has yet to deploy self-checkout—a service that could decrease wait-times at the circulation desk. A more unified approach to selecting and implementing collaboration tools 51 (e.g., BaseCamp, Confluence, Google Docs, Dropbox, UO Docs, etc.) was mentioned as a way to decrease confusion and frustration. Finally, web-based self-service software for equipment checkout, ticket tracking and screen sharing for technical support and faculty development are being explored for improvements to the customer experience. Project Management: Several UO Libraries’ staff members have received some training in project management; however, additional training could be helpful. The organization needs to re-examine and adjust projects “in flight” in order to make changes or course adjustments as needed. Professional Training: The UO Libraries has adopted a content management system (Drupal) and a site design that allows for multiple contributors. Additional training is needed for authors on writing for the web and maintaining site wide standards for content, navigation, and accessibility. Additionally, the new Alliance shared ILS will require re-training for most staff. To help anticipate and identify future training needs, the Director of Library Organizational Development and Human Resources would like to develop systematic, library-wide plan to facilitate the professional development of each staff member. Spatial proximity: Spatial proximity to other departments or staff performing related work was raised as an issue affecting efficiency. An investigation of library spaces should be undertaken with the intent to analyze adjacencies and proximities with an eye to improving efficiency and productivity. Student Training: More work could be done to optimize and promote the work of highly skilled student assistants. The organization ought to be identifying the best and most talented workers for further training and development. This will benefit the library and improve student prospects for post-baccalaureate employment. VIII. SWOT Analysis VIII. A. Summarize the major strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities facing the library. Review briefly the library’s major objectives for the next three to five years. What are the resource requirements associated with the library’s major objectives? Strengths • The UO Libraries is the only library in the state of Oregon that is currently a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)—a nonprofit organization of 125 libraries at comprehensive, research-extensive institutions in the US and Canada that share similar research missions, aspirations, and achievements. 52 • The library is valued for its quality of service, accessibility of its facilities, richness of its special collections, technical expertise, strong commitment to outreach, robust resource sharing program, and responsiveness to campus priorities. • In addition to the traditional services, the UO Libraries provides campus support for instructional technology including classroom equipment, video production services and distance education support, broadcasting and teleconferencing capabilities, streaming media, course management support (Blackboard), web and media development, and instructional design. These non-traditional library services increase and enrich the value of the library across the campus. • The UO Libraries’ subject specialists provide excellent outreach, interacting with a large number of students per year (16,650) through various types of instruction. In addition to the high level of interaction with students, the subject librarian liaison program has encouraged more meaningful engagement with faculty, their research, and the curriculum. • UO Libraries has exceptional expertise in metadata creation and management, and has been a leading participant in the Library of Congress’s Program for Cooperative Cataloging. • Within the region, the UO Libraries has played a leadership role in collaborative models, including the formation of what is now the Orbis Cascade Alliance, which is a consortium of 37 institutions in the Pacific Northwest that provides easy access to the consortium’s collective resources—now over 28 million items. The Alliance is pursuing an aggressive strategic plan which includes shared systems, shared ownership of e-resources, and shared workflows. It is considered a national model. • Library staff members have shown themselves to be flexible, adaptable, and capable of handling ambiguity. Staff members have demonstrated their willingness to learn new skills and adjust their workflows and priorities to adapt to the evolving needs of the library. In response to the evolving needs and environment of diminishing resources, change readiness will continue to be a major key to success in the years to come. • The library has heavily invested in the creation, distribution, and preservation of digital assets, including significant collections of historical photographs, an extensive institutional repository for faculty and student scholarship, and collections of art and architecture images, making these collections more accessible for current and future generations. UO Libraries has raised over $1.7 million dollars to support an Oregon historical newspaper digitization program. • The UO Libraries supports and encourages undergraduate research by providing several substantial scholarships each year for outstanding undergraduate work. The library also 53 provides publishing support for the new undergraduate research journal. To further support undergraduate research, the university has recently hired an undergraduate services librarian, who works in the new Global Scholars Hall Library Commons. • Recent key strategic advancements include endowing a data services position to work directly with faculty on issues related to data curation, the creation of a new Digital Scholarship Center, and partnerships with the Network Startup Resource Center and the Oregon Folklife Network. • The UO Libraries has had phenomenal success in fundraising. During the last campaign, the library doubled its original goal, raising $20 million for collections, technology, student and faculty support, and facilities. In FY12 the Library raised $7.5 million. The library’s message resonates very clearly with donors who want their gifts to have a positive and lasting impact on generations of students from all disciplines. Weaknesses • Past funding models have not addressed the full impact of inflation on library resources and obligated labor costs. As a result, the UO Libraries has reduced staffing and significant content, such as core journals. The library’s percentage of the Education and General funds has declined from 6.5% in FY06 to under 5% in FY12. The 2007 Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) accreditation report indicated that the continued long-term decline in library support has left the University of Oregon Libraries’ core collection (print and online) insufficient in quality, depth, diversity and currency to support graduate curricula and research in a number of programs. • Recruitment and job retention are an increasing area of weakness. The library’s inability to provide competitive salaries has made recruitment and retention for some positions a challenge. The starting salary for a new librarian is $40,000 for a 12-month appointment. The library’s goal has been similar to the schools and colleges: achieve a salary structure that is 100% of the average salary among public AAU institutions. Library salaries are currently at 89% of that average. • Staffing levels are significantly below those of peer institutions—85% of the median for professional and support staff. The problem is exacerbated by growth in demand for services, particularly in the areas of technology, resource sharing, classrooms, and distance education support. • In this organization communication is often difficult or found wanting, in part due to the size and complexity of the organization. 54 Opportunities • Declining state support and the growing costs associated with library resources and services are encouragement for more collaboration with regional and national partners. For example, the libraries within the Orbis Cascade Alliance are migrating to a single shared integrated system that will create new opportunities to expand services and reduce unnecessary duplication of resources. • Faculty are increasingly supportive of open access publishing and alternative models of scholarly communication. The library provides open access support through an institutional repository, journal publications, and other selected monographs. • The library's instructional services, media production, and instructional design teams provide a solid base of tools, facilities, and expertise to support the UO's expanding online learning and distributed education initiatives. • Space continues to be a premium on campus, and the potential for repurposing space, particularly in Knight Library, creates new opportunities for campus collaborations. • Faculty and graduate students continue to seek collaborations with the library. The creation of a New Media graduate certificate involved the participation and expertise of the UO Libraries. Staff from the DSC are teaching and developing curriculum to support the new certificate. Threats and Challenges • Constant changes in technology require continuous investments, new skills, and a quick rate of adoption to keep pace with the students. Legacy tools which were once cutting edge have become difficult for students to use when compared to the ease and ubiquity of Google. • Demand for some services, such as those that enable online education, continue to expand without the requisite investment in infrastructure and human capital. • New programs and campus initiatives are often created without a plan for sustainability, creating significant challenges for the operations funded by central services. • Preservation of digital content, including research data and electronic records, presents a challenge to the academy and cultural heritage institutions. The challenges include long-term storage, appropriate and flexible levels of access, sufficient metadata and finding tools, and the ability to refresh or migrate the content when the technology changes. 55 • The growing tendency of publishers to adopt licensing restrictions make it increasingly difficult to use scholarly resources in teaching and research and to insure that the intellectual output of the university is widely and effectively disseminated. • Students and faculty lack a basic understanding of copyright, licensing, and privacy in the digital age. • Central funding has not been made available to improve salaries, and attempts to self- fund have been put on hold due to union negotiations. Immediate Objectives and Resources Needed to Meet Those Objectives The strategic directions and objectives articulate the plan for the next several years. The more immediate and time sensitive goals include: • Secure funding for the new Science Commons and Research Library. Significant resources (approximately $8 to $10 million) are still needed to support the new Science Commons and Research Library. Nearly half of the requisite funds have been raised from private sources. In the past, if a project had half of the anticipated costs covered with private funds, state matching bonds were all but certain. The process for prioritizing projects within the state has recently been revised, which has resulted in more uncertainty with respect to the availability of state matching bonds. If state bonds are not issued during this legislative cycle, the project could be delayed considerably. Alternatives involve raising more of the funds from private sources, or taking on the debt obligation at the university level (which is predicated on securing a level of independence from the OUS). 56 • Prepare for the implementation of the Orbis Cascade shared ILS. The UO Libraries is in the third cohort for the implementation of the new catalog and discovery system, which will take place in July 2014. UO Libraries has the largest number of staff participating in the Alliance working groups. The working groups are charged with planning, implementation, and training for all Alliance libraries in cohorts 1-4. The UO Libraries is also serving in a leadership capacity in the development of collaborative technical services for the Alliance. Any additional financial resources associated with this effort have already been set aside. • Continue to reallocate space within Knight Library. Several service and departmental moves have taken place over the past few months to create improved work spaces and efficient proximities. The new Digital Scholarship Center (DSC) needs a more visible and public space to accommodate its emerging program. Funding associated with creating the new DSC space is estimated at $100,000. • Provide leadership and direction for changes associated with instructional technology. Under the direction of the Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs, the university has launched an effort to support innovation in technology-enhanced education. The library is facilitating a campus investigation into alternative course management systems. Although the design and extent of these efforts are still unfolding, the library can make some high priority investments that will create a more robust infrastructure for future expansion. Approximately $150,000 is needed for additional staff to support existing and proposed changes in the LMS service and approximately $150,000 to upgrade to high definition (HD) video. • Expand and strengthen the library’s organizational development program. With the recent hiring of a Director for Organizational Development and Human Resources, the library is poised to make further investments in staff development, organizational structures, and diversity goals. • Build out the Digital Scholarship Center. The UO Libraries is launching a suite of services to provide enhanced support for researchers who need to explore and use technology for analysis, expression, and distribution of their work. The university is experiencing a surge in interest in digital scholarship; new media; creating new forms of knowledge; and exploring the impact of technology on teaching, learning, and discovery. The DCS is modeled after a few exemplary programs at other institutions (University of Maryland, University of Nebraska, Brown University) and informed by interviews and surveys with UO faculty and graduate students. The DSC is in its very initial stages, but the goal is to expand the services based on engagement with faculty and students over the next several months. Immediate services include training, a speaker series, consultation on tools, digital archiving, and server space. New staffing requirements (project management, web/video development/faculty fellowships) are estimated at $200,000 recurring. There are one-time facility needs estimated above. 57 • Collection Restoration. Deficiencies in library collections have a negative impact on faculty research and graduate education. Surveys of user satisfaction have indicated that the UO Libraries fails to meet the minimum expectations of both faculty and graduate students. The most recent accreditation review underscored the need to shore up a collection that is “insufficient in quality, depth, diversity, and currency to support graduate curricula and research in a number of programs.” Approximately $1.5 million recurring dollars are needed to bring collections to the median of public AAU comparators in terms of expenditures per student. These funds will be used to address areas where the collection is deficient, to make e-book purchases, and acquire more full-text back files. 58 Appendix A: Links to Library Trend Data and Benchmarks • Library Quick Facts, FY2011-2012 • Statistical Abstract for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 • University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report, 2010-2011 • University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report, 2009-2010 • University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report, 2008-2009 • University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report, 2007-2008 • University of Oregon Libraries Annual Report, 2006-2007 59 Appendix B: Underrepresented Minorities Faculty Recruitment Plan: Executive Summary Underrepresented Minorities Faculty Recruitment Plan Executive Summary UO Libraries, April 2010 Purpose UO library users – faculty, students, staff members, members of the greater community – need to see themselves when they walk into the library. They need to see themselves in the displays, collections, websites, and staff. (--adapted from the American Librarian Association, Office for Diversity). The creation of a Three to Five-year Minority Recruitment Plan was Goal #1 in the “Recruitment and Retention” section of the UO Libraries’ Strategic Action Plan (SAP), which was distributed to campus on September 7, 2007. This document addresses that goal, and the continuing challenge to fulfill it. Current Demographics The UO Libraries lags behind its peers in ethnic diversity of professional staff. The numbers of individuals that are members of under-represented groups are so small that there is no critical mass that signifies a truly inclusive work environment. Caucasian/Other African American/ Black Hispanic/ Latino Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaskan Native UO Libraries, unclassified staff [2010] 94.9% [74] 1.3% [1] 1.3% [1] 3.9% [3] 2.6% [2] Association of Research Libraries – U.S. data for professional staff [2009] 85.9% 4.7% 2.8% 6.3% 0.3% Recruitment An analysis of our professional recruitments over the last ten years may help us focus our recruitment efforts. (Note: applicants are not required to self-identify as minority; these percentages are based on only those who chose to self-identify.) • Applicant pools – 14% minority • Telephone interview – 16% minority • On-site interview – 17% minority • Offers extended – 18% minority • Offers accepted – 12% minority The data suggests that the UO Libraries is giving careful consideration to minority candidates during the search process. Unfortunately, four offers to minority candidates were declined, dropping our percentage of completed hires. This may reflect the rather sharp competition to hire minority professionals in Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Salaries may not be an issue. Although UO 60 salaries are lower than the mean for ARL, they do not vary to the extent that they do in other disciplines. Retention The primary reason unclassified staff leave their position, regardless of minority status, is for another job. The data suggests that there is not a significant retention problem. The average turnover rate is 6.5 percent. Reason For Leaving (1999-2009): Other Job Opp. Other Job Opp. At UO Spouse/ Partner’s Job Retired Relocated (other than for new job) Died Personal Reasons Medical Reasons Terminated Position Eliminated Totals All Unclassified 22 2 8 9 2 2 3 3 1 1 53 Minority Unclassified 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Action Plan: 2010-2013 1. Increase the number of minorities in our applicant pools. • Library Administration will provide direct travel funding to at least one member of the Library Diversity Committee (LDC) to attend the National Diversity in Libraries Conference to be held in Princeton, NJ, July 14-16, 2010: https://qed.princeton.edu/main/NDLC2010. • Library Administration will provide direct travel funding to at least one member of the LDC to attend the Joint Conference on Librarians of Color (JCLC), to be held in Kansas City, MO, September 19-23, 2012. • Director of Library Human Resources (DLHR) will develop and maintain connections with American Library Association’s Spectrum Scholars Program. • The library’s Gateway to Organizational Learning and Development Team (GOLD) and LDC will sponsor a workshop on how all employees can do successful “networking” and build productive relationships at conferences with prospective recruits. • GOLD and LDC will sponsor a workshop similar to the one held on January 21, 2010 for Facilities Services, in which Terry Leary, Affirmative Action, and Shelly Kerr, Counseling and Testing Center, gave a presentation, “Hiring with Diversity in Mind.” • DLHR will keep minority applications on file; invite them to reapply for subsequent openings (depending upon their background and the nature of the position). 2. Provide short-term internships and fellowships to help create a critical mass. • DLHR will investigate resources, opportunities and options for funding a paid internship for a Spectrum Scholar. • DLHR will investigate resources, opportunities and funding options to host an ARL Diversity Scholar at the UO (see: http://www.arl.org/news/pr/diversityscholars09.shtml). • DLHR will investigate resources, opportunities and funding options to the UO Libraries to hosting an ARL Career Enhancement Program Fellow (see: http://www.arl.org/news/pr/cep- 2010.shtml). This is a paid internship at an ARL member library, funded by Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and member libraries. • DLHR will investigate resources, opportunities and funding options for possible participation in ARL’s Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce. The result may be the development of a proposal to create a (minority) Resident Librarian position – the first located west of New Mexico. 61 2. Collect and review qualitative data from declined job offers and exit interviews. • DLHR will create a more detailed list of reasons for resignations. • Dean of Libraries will send summary information to DLHR from declined job offers and exit interviews. 62 Appendix C: Contract Renewal & Promotion Procedures for Library Faculty Contract Renewal and Promotion Procedures for Library Faculty Contents: 0. Calendar and Deadlines 1. Roles and Responsibilities 2. Overview of the Process 3. Types of Contracts 4. Criteria for Promotion and Contract Renewal 5. Pre-Sixth Year Annual Evaluation and Contract Renewal 6. Sixth Year Review for Promotion to Associate Librarian 7. Post-Sixth Year Contract Renewal 8. Review for Promotion to Senior Librarian 9. Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal 10. Timely Notice and Appeals ______________________________________________________________________ 0. Calendar and Deadlines This calendar includes important dates and activities relating to contract renewal or promotion review for library faculty. The calendar is based on the Office of Academic Affairs' deadline for completion of the review process. Whether an individual is undergoing formal review by the Library Faculty Personnel Committee or not (for those who are post-Sixth Year Review, this will only happen every sixth year, or every other contract review), please try to adhere to this schedule. Deadlines in red are firm. 2012-2013: Mid-Late July: On behalf of Dean of Libraries, Laine Stambaugh (LS) notifies candidates and supervisors of the documentation required for review files Aug. 31 Candidates complete and submit the following documentation electronically and hard copy (if signature is required on form) to LS: 1. Promotion Election Form (if your promotion is optional to Senior Librarian) 2. Waiver Option Form (see your choices, 1, 2 or 3 at https://iris.uoregon.edu/cms/node/375) 63 3. List of Referees (see: https://iris.uoregon.edu/cms/node/4261 for suggestions on how to select referees) 4. If you are undergoing your first formal contract renewal or promotion review, you may request a special mentor for this process. You may find the Mentor Request Form here: https://iris.uoregon.edu/cms/sites/default/files/node375/Mentor%20Option%20For m.docx. Sept. 10 LS notifies Library Faculty Personnel Committee (LFPC) of final caseload Sept. 11 LS forwards candidate's list of referees to the candidate's supervisor Sept. 18 Supervisor submits a separate (not duplicating those on candidate's) list of referees to LS Sept. 18 Both candidate and supervisor lists of possible referees sent to Dean of Libraries Oct. 1 Dean of Libraries selects referees to contact and notifies LS Oct. 1 LS requests letters of evaluation from supervisors Oct. 1 LS begins contacting referees to ask them if they will be willing to review candidate materials Oct. 12 Candidates submit all required documentation in electronic form (pdf preferred) to LS Oct. 22 LS sends review file documentation by email to referees who have agreed to write letters Nov. 21 Referee letters are due to LS Nov. 21 Supervisor letter of evaluation due to LS Nov. 21 LS requests evaluation letters for pre-sixth year review from candidate's AUL and/or Dean of Libraries Dec. 31 AUL or Dean letters due to LS Dec. 31 All review files are complete and ready for LFPC review Jan. 7 - Mar. 31 LFPC considers review files and provides the dean with a letter of recommendation 64 Apr. 1-20 The dean evaluates candidate dossiers and completes recommendation letters to the Office of the Provost Apr. 30 Deadline for LS to submit review files to the Office of the Provost July 1 New contracts and/or promotions become effective ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Roles and Responsibilities This section provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of participants in the contract renewal and promotion process. 1.1 Candidates Candidates for contract renewal or promotion are ranked library faculty who are responsible for completing in a timely manner the documentation delineated in 5 (Pre- Sixth Year Annual Evaluation and Contract Renewal), 6 (Sixth Year Review for Promotion to Associate Librarian), 7 (Post-Sixth Year Contract Renewal), 8 (Review for Promotion to Senior Librarian), or 9 (Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal) as determined by type of contract. see 3 (Types of Contracts). 1.2 Director, Library Human Resources (DLHR) The DLHR coordinates the contract review process and the completion of review files. The DLHR prepares the annual calendar to identify exact deadlines for the review process. On behalf of the Dean of Libraries (hereinafter, the dean), the DLHR initiates the review process by compiling lists of candidates for contract renewal or promotion and by notifying the candidates and their supervisors of the documentation required for review files. The DLHR also provides notification, as appropriate, to the dean, the Associate University Librarians (AUL), and the Library Faculty Personnel Committee (LFPC). The DLHR reminds supervisors to conduct annual evaluations of pre-sixth year review faculty. The DLHR coordinates the assignment of mentors to candidates. The DLHR solicits names of possible external referees and submits that list to the dean for final approval. The DLHR issues a formal request to referees, which includes a cover letter from the dean, promotion criteria, and review file documents completed by the candidate. The DLHR manages the review files and coordinates submission of files to the Office of the Provost. The DLHR is responsible for managing records in keeping with OUS policies and procedures. 1.3 Library Payroll & Personnel Services 65 Library Payroll & Personnel Services houses official faculty personnel files which include documentation of annual evaluations and contract renewals. Access policies for files are described in HR: Employee Records/Data. http://hr.uoregon.edu/records/employee-data.html 1.4 Mentor A mentor is a ranked library faculty who has completed promotion to Associate Librarian or Senior Librarian, has served on the LFPC, and is from outside the individual’s home department. A mentor counsels the candidate in the preparation and presentation of the review file. 1.5 Supervisor The supervisor conducts annual evaluations of pre-sixth year review faculty not scheduled for contract renewal. For promotion cases the supervisor submits a list of six referees to the DLHR. A supervisor reviews a candidate’s review file, as received from the DLHR, prior to writing an assessment. A supervisor writes an assessment of a candidate’s performance that includes a recommendation on contract renewal or promotion and submits this assessment to the DLHR for inclusion in the review file. 1.6 Associate University Librarian (AUL) The AUL writes an assessment of a candidate for pre-sixth year contract renewal who is within his or her reporting structure. The AUL writes an assessment of a candidate for contract renewal that he or she directly supervises. The AUL writes an assessment of a candidate for promotion review who is within his or her reporting structure. 1.7 Library Faculty Personnel Committee (LFPC) The LFPC is an elected, standing committee of the Library Faculty, as authorized and defined in the Library Faculty Bylaws. The LFPC considers the files of candidates under review for promotion and provides the dean with a letter of review. In certain cases, as described below, the LFPC also considers the files of candidates under review for contract renewal and provides the dean with a letter of review. Upon request the LFPC provides a written summary of referees’ letters to candidates who have waived their right of access to these letters. 1.8 Referees Referees are individuals who do not work at the UO Libraries and who agree to review the candidate’s promotion review file and write a letter with a recommendation regarding promotion. Candidates and supervisors recommend referees. The dean selects the referees. 1.9 Dean of Libraries 66 The dean notifies the Office of the Provost of promotion review cases. The dean reviews lists of suggested referees for candidates undergoing promotion review. The dean makes the final selection of six referees for promotion review cases, not necessarily from lists of referees compiled by the candidate or supervisor. The dean solicits additional comments as necessary. The dean evaluates contract renewal and promotion review files and completes recommendation letters to the Office of the Provost. 1.10 Office of the Provost The Office of the Provost reviews candidates’ review files, including the Dean of Libraries’ recommendations, makes the final decision concerning contract renewal and promotion cases, and notifies the candidates. ______________________________________________________________________ 2. Overview of the Process A calendar identifying deadlines for the review process is prepared annually by the DLHR. The paragraphs below provide a general chronological overview. See the LFPC web site for the current Calendar and Deadlines for Contract Renewal and Promotion. 2.1 Summer Term During summer term, the DLHR reminds supervisors to conduct annual evaluations for pre-sixth year review faculty not scheduled for contract renewal or promotion that year. The DLHR compiles the list of candidates for contract renewal or promotion and notifies them, their supervisors, and as appropriate, the AUL, of the documentation required for review files. The DLHR requests that candidates eligible for promotion to senior librarian submit the promotion election form. The DLHR coordinates the assignment of mentors to candidates who opt for that service. Candidates prepare documentation required for review files and submit it to the DLHR in first weeks of fall term. 2.2 Fall Term During fall term, the dean identifies referees for candidates for promotion review, taking into consideration recommendations provided by the candidate and supervisor. The DLHR contacts referees to solicit participation, sends them promotion review file documents, and adds referees’ letters of evaluation to the review files. Supervisors complete letters of evaluation and submit them to the DLHR. AULs complete evaluations of individuals within their reporting structure and submit them to the DLHR. 67 2.3 Winter Term At the end of fall term, and throughout winter term, the LFPC reviews contract review and promotion review files and solicits additional documentation as necessary. The LFPC writes letters of recommendation to the dean and submits these letters to the DLHR for inclusion in the review files. 2.4 Spring Term At the end of winter term and the beginning of spring term, the dean reviews the completed contract review and promotion review files and writes letters of recommendation which the DLHR adds to the review files. During spring term, the DLHR submits on behalf of the dean the completed review files to the Office of the Provost. The provost subsequently notifies candidates of contract review or promotion decisions and of the appeal process. ______________________________________________________________________ 3. Types of Contracts The dean identifies contract conditions when making an offer of appointment to a new faculty member. A contract period ends with the fiscal year and may be less than two years in duration depending on the time of appointment. The initial contract and rank determine which contract renewal and promotion process will be undertaken. 3.1 Two-Year Contract Recent graduates with no or minimal relevant library experience are normally appointed with a two-year contract. Initial appointment is at the rank of assistant librarian. The two-year contract may be renewed twice, allowing employment of six years. During the sixth year, the evaluation process determines whether the individual is promoted and moves to a three-year contract or whether the individual’s employment is terminated with timely notice. Promotion is mandatory for continued employment. 3.2 Two-Year Contract with Credit Early career professionals may be appointed with a two-year contract with credit toward an early sixth year review. Some determining factors for credit may include length of service at other institutions, rank held in previous appointments, and professional contributions. Once a date for sixth year review is agreed upon, the individual must adhere to that schedule. 3.3 Three-Year Contract 68 Professionals who have undergone a successful sixth year review receive three-year contracts. Senior administrators such as department heads may be appointed to an initial three-year contract at the associate librarian rank with possible credit towards early eligibility for promotion to senior librarian. Individuals appointed at associate librarian do not undergo the sixth year review, as they most likely have experienced a similar review at other institutions. Some determining factors for credit or rank may include length of service at other institutions, rank held in previous appointments, and professional contributions. ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Criteria for Promotion and Contract Renewal 4.1 Criteria for Pre-Sixth Year Contract Renewal A candidate for pre-sixth year contract renewal is expected: a. To have demonstrated achievement in his or her professional role(s) in the library. b. To have sought out additional opportunities for service in the library, university, community, and profession. c. To have strengthened his or her involvement in publication, conference presentations, or other professionally acknowledged venues. 4.2 Criteria for Promotion to Associate Librarian A candidate for promotion from assistant librarian to associate librarian is expected: a. To have made significant achievements in his or her professional roles in the library, as identified in his or her position descriptions. b. To have provided service to the library, university, and community. Any community service should relate to professional expertise or position. c. To have demonstrated a growing expertise and professional reputation, in the judgment of his or her professional peers. d. To have made significant contributions through professionally acknowledged channels, including some or all of the following. Contributions must have a clear, positive impact on the profession beyond the university. Scholarship disseminated through publication Papers delivered/presented 69 Manuscripts prepared Works in progress Participation in professional or scholarly organizations that is appropriate to his or her responsibilities 4.3 Criteria for Post-Sixth Year Contract Renewal A candidate for post-sixth year contract renewal is expected: a. To have demonstrated achievement in his or her professional role(s) in the library. b. To have demonstrated continued service in the library, university, community, and profession; and to have contributed to the library’s strategic agenda. c. To have strengthened his or her involvement in publication, conference presentations, or other professionally acknowledged venues. 4.4 Criteria for Promotion to Senior Librarian A candidate who has held the rank of associate librarian for five or more years, or sooner if initial contract indicates credit toward an earlier review (see 3.3), may consider promotion review to senior librarian in any year. A candidate considering promotion to senior librarian must meet a set of standards that are more rigorous and qualitatively higher than those for promotion to associate librarian. This rank is awarded only upon the achievement of high professional stature, accomplishment, and service that is widely recognized within the profession and the university community. In this review, a candidate must show a coherent record of achievement characterized by mature development and qualitative progress beyond the work that earned the promotion to associate librarian. A candidate for promotion to senior librarian is expected: a. To have been recognized widely by his or her professional peers as an expert and leader in his or her areas of competence. b. To have made outstanding contributions through professionally acknowledged channels, including some or all of the following. Contributions must be widely regarded as having a clear, positive, far-reaching impact on the profession, and may include the following: Scholarship disseminated through publication Papers delivered/presented Manuscripts prepared 70 Works in progress Participation in professional or scholarly organizations that is appropriate to his or her areas of responsibility c. To have established a record of solid, lasting accomplishment in their professional roles in the library, as identified in position descriptions. d. To have provided service to the library, university, and community that is characterized by successful leadership, produces a strong positive impact, or results in public credit to the library and to the university. Any community service should relate to professional expertise or position. 4.5 Criteria for Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal A candidate for post-promotion to senior librarian contract renewal is expected: a. To have demonstrated achievement in his or her professional role(s) in the library. b. To have demonstrated continued service in the library, university, community, and profession; and to have contributed to the library’s strategic agenda. c. To have strengthened his or her involvement in publication, conference presentations, or other professionally acknowledged venues. ________________________________________________________________ 5. Pre-Sixth Year Annual Evaluation and Contract Renewal 5.1 Criteria for Promotion to Associate Librarian See 4.2 for criteria. 5.2 Annual Evaluations and Preparation for Pre-Sixth Year Contract Renewal a. In non-contract renewal years, supervisors are required to conduct annual evaluations for anyone who has not yet been promoted to associate librarian. This process should take place during the summer or fall. b. The annual evaluation serves to assess the accomplishments of the faculty member during the past year and to discuss and review professional goals. The review should provide guidance to ensure that the individual’s goals are aligned with the library’s strategic agenda. The annual review process also ensures that the individual is provided sufficient performance assessment prior to sixth-year review. 71 c. Supervisors provide to the individual a written summary of the annual evaluation and submit a copy to DLHR for that individual’s personnel file. Supervisors may consult these summaries as sources for sixth-year review assessments. 5.3 Description of Process for Contract Renewal See 2, Overview of the Process. The candidate is given the option of having a mentor (see 1.4). 5.4 Documentation for Contract Review File 5.4.1 Documentation Required from Candidate a. Curriculum vitae b. Position description c. Candidate statement The candidate writes a statement that describes his or her accomplishments and their impact. It should address accomplishments since initial professional appointment in the areas of responsibility; service to the UO Libraries and the university; and contributions through local, state, national, or international professional venues. The quality and impact of an individual’s contributions are most important. The statement should be engaging and understandable to those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. Descriptions of committee service should include the committee’s charge and the candidate’s involvement. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. d. Course evaluations summary A candidate who has taught a credit class submits a summary of the course evaluations for the review file. e. Letters of appreciation (Optional) A candidate may submit for the review file letters of appreciation from those with whom he or she has worked in a professional capacity. f. Other material (Optional) 72 Unsolicited statements may be received for the candidate undergoing review and placed in the review file. The DLHR notifies the candidate when such material is received. 5.4.2 Documentation Required from Candidate’s Supervisor a. Supervisor statement The supervisor writes a statement that provides a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments and performance of major responsibilities. The assessment should address how accomplishments and performance align with the library’s strategic agenda. The statement should conclude with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. The supervisor should be mindful that the statement will be reviewed by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues b. Statement on subject specialist responsibilities (from AUL or other) For a candidate with subject specialist responsibilities, e.g. collection development responsibilities, the supervisor requests an assessment of performance of these responsibilities from one or more of the following: AUL for Collections & Access, appropriate Collection Manager, academic department liaison, or an academic department faculty. This statement, which may be brief, should be referenced in the supervisor statement. 5.4.3 Documentation Required from Candidate’s AUL a. Letter of evaluation The AUL writes a brief letter based on review of the contract renewal review file of a candidate within his or her reporting structure and concludes with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. 5.4.4 Documentation Required from LFPC a. Letter of review The LFPC writes a letter of review based on its consideration of the candidate’s review file. The letter may be brief and should focus on the candidate’s progress toward promotion. 73 5.4.5 Documentation Required from Dean a. Letter of recommendation regarding contract renewal The dean writes a letter based on review of the candidate’s review file and concludes with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. ______________________________________________________________________ 6. Sixth Year Review for Promotion to Associate Librarian 6.1 Criteria for Promotion to Associate Librarian See 4.2 for criteria. 6.2 Description of the Process a. The sixth year review is a mandatory up-or-out review conducted in the fall of the fifth year of initial employment, or earlier if indicated in an initial contract (see 3.2). It includes submission of letters by referees from outside the UO Libraries, including referees who do not have a professional relationship with the candidate. Sixth year review, if successfully completed, generates three-year contracts from that point on, and results in promotion in rank to associate librarian with an associated salary increase; and, if unsuccessful, results in a timely notice contract (see 10). b. Exception: The timing of the sixth year review may be extended because of pregnancy, childbirth, or adoption of a new baby. This applies to both mothers and fathers. For more information see university policy 3.130, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirPolicy/ch3q.html. Request for this exception must be made in writing to the provost, and must be initiated within twelve months after the pregnancy, birth, or adoption. c. The candidate is strongly encouraged to work with a mentor for the promotion process (see 1.4). Mentors can provide advice on waiver options and file preparation. d. The candidate receives notification from the DLHR that the review file has been sent to the Office of the Provost. The candidate also receives copies of recommendation letters, unless right of access has been waived. The candidate receives a letter from the provost indicating final disposition. The successful candidate also receives a new three- year contract generated by Academic Affairs to be signed and returned to that office and an appropriate salary increase. In unsuccessful cases, the provost extends a non- renewable contract that contains timely notice as appropriate (see 10). 6.3 Action Items for Review File 74 a. Each referee reviews the documentation in the promotion review file provided by the DLHR and writes a letter with a recommendation regarding promotion. b. The DLHR notifies the dean if referees are unable to complete letters and the dean identifies alternate referees. c. The candidate’s supervisor reviews the promotion review file, including referees’ letters, and writes a supervisor statement. d. The AUL for that candidate’s division reviews the promotion review file and writes a letter of evaluation. e. The LFPC writes a letter of review with a recommendation for or against promotion based on its consideration of the completed review file. f. The dean writes a letter of recommendation taking into consideration the LFPC assessment. g. The provost or his or her designee makes the final determination for the case. 6.4 Documentation Required for Review File 6.4.1 Documentation Required from Candidate a. Election of promotion review form A candidate for whom sixth year review is optional, as described in 3.2, must complete and return an election of promotion review form to the DLHR by August 31. Once the review becomes mandatory, the form is no longer required. b. Waiver option form A candidate completes the appropriate waiver option form to waive or retain legal right of access to review file material, as described below. Option #1: Non-Waiver The candidate retains the right of access to all material in the promotion review file. Option #2: Full Waiver The candidate waives the right of access to all material in the promotion review file. The candidate may request from the LFPC a written summary of referees’ letters. The summary should not identify the referees or provide information from which the referees may be identified. 75 Option #3: Partial Waiver The candidate waives the right of access to non-UO affiliated referees' letters and retains the right of access to other material in the promotion review file. The candidate may request from the LFPC a written summary of non-UO affiliated referees’ letters. The summary should not identify the non-UO affiliated referees or provide information from which these referees may be identified. c. List of referees The candidate submits a list of six possible referees. The list includes each referee’s name, title, mailing address, and email address, as well as a brief explanation of why the referee was selected. The list must include some referees who do not have a professional relationship with the candidate. Referees should be able to evaluate the strength and impact of the candidate’s professional activities in their area of expertise. A candidate is encouraged to suggest referees at peer institutions, as determined by the dean and supervisor, who have six or more years of experience in the candidate’s area of expertise. The list may include as many as two referees from the UO who are not employed by UO Libraries, particularly if the candidate has subject specialist responsibilities. d. Candidate statement The candidate writes a statement that describes his or her accomplishments and their impact. It should address accomplishments since initial professional appointment in the areas of job responsibility; service to the UO Libraries and the university; and contributions through local, state, national, or international professional venues. The quality and impact of contributions is most important. The statement should be engaging and understandable to those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. Descriptions of committee service should include the committee’s charge and the candidate’s involvement. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. e. Position description f. Curriculum vitae g. Course evaluations summary 76 A candidate who has taught a credit class submits a summary of the course evaluations for the review file. h. Letters of appreciation (Optional) The candidate may submit for the review file letters of appreciation from those with whom he or she has worked in a professional capacity. i. Other material (Optional) Unsolicited statements may be received for the candidate undergoing review and placed in the review file. The DLHR notifies the candidate when such material is received. 6.4.2 Documentation Required from Supervisor a. List of referees The supervisor submits a list of six possible referees. The list includes each referee’s name, title, mailing address, and email address, as well as a brief explanation of why the referee was selected. The list must include some referees who do not have a professional relationship with the candidate. Referees should be able to evaluate the strength and impact of the candidate’s professional activities in their area of expertise. The supervisor is encouraged to suggest referees at peer institutions who have six or more years of experience in the candidate’s area of expertise. b. Supervisor statement Upon review of the review file, including referees’ letters, the supervisor writes a statement that provides a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments and performance of major responsibilities. The assessment should address how accomplishments and performance align with the library’s strategic agenda. The statement should conclude with a recommendation for promotion or timely notice. The supervisor should be mindful that the statement will be reviewed by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. c. Statement on subject specialist responsibilities (from AUL or other) For a candidate with subject specialist responsibilities, e.g. collection development responsibilities, the supervisor requests an assessment of performance of these 77 responsibilities from one or more of the following: AUL for Collections & Access, appropriate Collection Manager, academic department liaison, or an academic department faculty. This statement, which may be brief, should be referenced in the supervisor statement. 6.4.3 Documentation Required from Referees a. Letter of review Each referee writes a letter based on review of promotion review file documentation provided by the DLHR and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. 6.4.4 Documentation Required from AUL a. Letter of evaluation The AUL writes a letter based on review of the promotion review file of a candidate within his or her reporting structure and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. 6.4.5 Documentation Required from LFPC a. Letter of review The LFPC writes a letter of review based on its consideration of the candidate’s review file. In the letter the LFPC evaluates the candidate’s performance in relation to the criteria for promotion and provides a recommendation regarding promotion. 6.4.6 Documentation Required from Dean a. Final list of referees The final list of referees is determined by the dean and may include individuals other than those recommended by the candidate or the supervisor. If any of the referees appear not to be submitting letters in a timely manner, the DLHR notifies the dean, who finds alternate referees. b. Letter of recommendation regarding promotion The dean writes a letter based on review of the candidate’s promotion review file and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Post-Sixth Year Contract Renewal 78 7.1 Criteria for Post-Sixth Year Review Contract Renewal See 4.3 for criteria. 7.2 Preparation for Post-Sixth Year Contract Renewal A faculty member with the rank of associate librarian is not required to have formal annual evaluations. However, the faculty member should meet annually with his or her supervisor to review professional responsibilities and goals to ensure that they align with the library’s strategic agenda. Such meetings also ensure the individual is provided sufficient guidance for future contract renewals and possible candidacy for promotion. 7.3 Description of Process See 2, Overview of the Process. 7.4 Documentation Required for Review File 7.4.1 Documentation Required from Candidate a. Curriculum vitae b. Position description c. Candidate statement The candidate writes a statement that describes his or her accomplishments and their impact. It should address accomplishments since previous contract renewal in the areas of job responsibility; service to the UO Libraries and the university; and contributions through local, state, national, or international professional venues. Quality of involvement is of more importance than a list. The statement should be engaging and understandable to those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. Descriptions of committee service should describe the committee’s charge and the candidate’s involvement. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. d. Course evaluations summary A candidate who has taught a credit class submits a summary of the course evaluations for the review file. 79 e. Letters of appreciation (Optional) The candidate may submit for the review file letters of appreciation from those with whom he or she has worked in a professional capacity. f. Other material (Optional) Unsolicited statements may be received for the candidate undergoing review and placed in the review file. The DLHR notifies the candidate when such material is received. 7.4.2 Documentation Required from Candidate’s Supervisor a. Supervisor statement The supervisor writes a statement that provides a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments and performance of major responsibilities. The assessment should address how accomplishments and performance align with the library’s strategic agenda. The statement should conclude with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. The supervisor should be mindful that the statement will be reviewed by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu//sites/all/files/des/uploads/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. b. Statement on subject specialist responsibilities (from AUL or other) For a candidate with subject specialist responsibilities, e.g. collection development responsibilities, the supervisor requests an assessment of performance of these responsibilities from one or more of the following: AUL for Collections & Access, appropriate Collection Manager, academic department liaison, or an academic department faculty. This statement, which may be brief, should be referenced in the supervisor statement. 7.4.3 Documentation Required from LFPC a. Letter of review For a candidate’s first contract renewal after promotion to associate librarian and alternate contract renewals thereafter, the LFPC does not review the candidate’s review file or write a letter of review. 80 For a candidate’s second contract renewal after promotion to associate librarian and alternate contract renewals thereafter, the LFPC writes a letter of review based on its consideration of the candidate’s review file. In the letter the LFPC evaluates the candidate’s performance in relation to the criteria for contract renewal and assesses the candidate’s progress toward promotion. 7.4.4 Documentation Required from Dean a. Letter of recommendation regarding contract renewal The dean writes a letter based on review of the candidate’s review file and concludes with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. ___________________________________________________________________ 8. Review for Promotion to Senior Librarian 8.1 Criteria for Promotion to Senior Librarian See 4.4 for criteria. 8.2 Description of the Process a. Review for promotion to senior librarian is optional and may be initiated in the summer of the fifth or later years of employment at the rank of associate librarian, or sooner if initial contract indicates credit toward an earlier review (see 3.3). b. An individual who is considering promotion review should consult regularly his or her immediate supervisor in order to determine readiness for promotion review. c. The candidate is strongly encouraged to work with a mentor for the promotion process (see 1.4). Mentors can provide advice on waiver options and file preparation. d. The candidate receives notification from the DLHR that the review file has been sent to the Office of the Provost. The candidate also receives copies of recommendation letters, unless right of access has been waived. A successful candidate receives a letter from the provost, with a new three-year contract that specifies a promotion in rank to senior librarian and the related salary increase. Failure to achieve promotion does not in and of itself jeopardize one’s employment or existing contract and does not preclude future attempts at promotion. 8.3 Action Items for Review File a. Each referee reviews the documentation in the promotion review file provided by the DLHR and writes a letter with a recommendation regarding promotion. 81 b. The DLHR notifies the dean if referees are unable to complete letters and the dean identifies alternate referees. c. The candidate’s supervisor reviews the promotion review file, including referees’ letters, and writes a supervisor statement. d. The AUL for that candidate’s division reviews the promotion review file and writes a letter of evaluation. e. The LFPC writes a letter of review with a recommendation for or against promotion based on its consideration of the candidate’s review file. f. The dean writes a letter of recommendation taking into consideration the LFPC assessment. g. The provost or his or her designee makes the final determination for the case. 8.4 Documentation Required for Review File 8.4.1 Documentation Required from Candidate a. Election of promotion review form A candidate for review for promotion to senior librarian must complete and return an election of promotion review form to the DLHR by August 31. If a candidate elects not to undergo this review, and his or her contract is not due to expire the following June 30, no further action is required. A candidate will be notified of continued eligibility for promotion review at the same time the following year. b. Waiver option form A candidate completes the appropriate waiver option form to waive or retain legal right of access to review file material, as described below. Option #1: Non-Waiver The candidate retains the right of access to all material in the promotion review file. Option #2: Full Waiver The candidate waives the right of access to all material in the promotion review file. The candidate may request from the LFPC a written summary of referees’ letters. The summary should not identify the referees or provide information from which the referees may be identified. 82 Option #3: Partial Waiver The candidate waives the right of access to non-UO affiliated referees' letters and retains the right of access to other material in the promotion review file. The candidate may request from the LFPC a written summary of non-UO affiliated referees’ letters. The summary should not identify the non-UO affiliated referees or provide information from which these referees may be identified. c. List of referees The candidate submits a list of six possible referees. The list includes each referee’s name, title, mailing address, and email address, as well as a brief explanation of why the referee was selected. The list must include some referees who do not have a professional relationship with the candidate. Referees should be able to evaluate the strength and impact of the candidate’s professional activities in their area of expertise. A candidate is encouraged to suggest referees at peer institutions, as determined by the dean and supervisor, who have six or more years of experience in the candidate’s area of expertise. The list may include up to two names of referees from the UO who are not employed by UO Libraries, particularly if the candidate has subject specialist responsibilities. d. Candidate statement The candidate writes a statement that describes his or her accomplishments and their impact. It should address major accomplishments since initial professional appointment in the areas of job responsibility; service to the UO Libraries and the university; and contributions through local, state, national, or international professional venues. Quality of involvement is of more importance than a list. The statement should be written to engage and be understood by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. Descriptions of committee service should describe the committee’s charge and the candidate’s involvement. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. e. Position description f. Curriculum vitae g. Course evaluations summaries A candidate who has taught a credit class submits a summary of the course evaluations for the review file. 83 h. Letters of appreciation (Optional) The candidate may submit for the review file letters of appreciation from those with whom he or she has worked in a professional capacity. i. Other material (Optional) Unsolicited statements may be received for the candidate undergoing review and placed in the review file. The DLHR notifies the candidate when such material is received. 8.4.2 Documentation Required from Supervisor a. List of referees The supervisor submits a list of six possible referees. The list includes each referee’s name, title, mailing address, and email address, as well as a brief explanation of why the referee was selected. The list must include some referees who do not have a professional relationship with the candidate. Referees should be able to evaluate the strength and impact of the candidate’s professional activities in their area of expertise. The supervisor is encouraged to suggest referees at peer institutions who have six or more years of experience in the candidate’s area of expertise. b. Supervisor statement Upon review of the review file, including referees’ letters, the supervisor writes a statement that provides a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments, as reflected in previous annual reviews, if available, and contract renewals; and the candidate’s performance of major responsibilities, including supervisory roles and subject liaison responsibilities. The assessment should address how accomplishments and performance align with the library’s strategic agenda. The statement should conclude with a recommendation regarding promotion. The supervisor should be mindful that the statement will be reviewed by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. c. Statement on subject specialist responsibilities (from AUL or other) For a candidate with subject specialist responsibilities, e.g. collection development responsibilities, the supervisor requests an assessment of performance of these responsibilities from one or more of the following: AUL for Collections & Access, appropriate Collection Manager, academic department liaison, or an academic 84 department faculty. This statement, which may be brief, should be referenced in the supervisor statement. 8.4.3 Documentation Required from Referees a. Letter of review Each referee writes a letter based on review of promotion review file documentation provided by the DLHR and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. 8.4.4 Documentation Required from AUL a. Letter of evaluation The AUL writes a letter based on review of the promotion review file of a candidate within his or her reporting structure and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. 8.4.5 Documentation Required from LFPC a. Letter of review The LFPC writes a letter of review based on its consideration of the candidate’s promotion review file. In the letter the LFPC evaluates the candidate’s performance in relation to the criteria for promotion and provides a recommendation regarding promotion. 8.4.6 Documentation Required from Dean a. Final list of referees The final list of referees is determined by the dean and may include individuals other than those recommended by the candidate or the supervisor. If any of the referees appear not to be submitting letters in a timely manner, the DLHR notifies the dean, who finds alternate referees. b. Letter of recommendation regarding promotion The dean writes a letter based on review of candidate’s review file and concludes with a recommendation regarding promotion. ______________________________________________________________________ 9. Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal 9.1 Criteria for Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal 85 See 4.5 for criteria. 9.2 Preparation for Post-Promotion to Senior Librarian Contract Renewal A faculty member with the rank of senior librarian is not required to have a formal annual evaluation. However, the faculty member should meet annually with his or her supervisor to review job duties and professional goals to ensure that they align with the library’s strategic agenda. Such meetings also ensure the individual is provided sufficient guidance for future contract renewals. 9.3 Description of the Process See 2, Overview of the Process 9.4 Documentation Required for Review File 9.4.1 Documentation Required from Candidate a. Curriculum vitae b. Position description c. Candidate statement The candidate writes a statement that describes his or her accomplishments and their impact. It should address accomplishments since previous contract renewal in the areas of job responsibility; service to the UO Libraries and the university; and contributions through local, state, national, or international professional venues. Quality of involvement is of more importance than a list. The statement should be written to engage and be understood by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. Descriptions of committee service should describe the committee’s charge and the candidate’s involvement. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. d. Course evaluations summaries A candidate who has taught a credit class submits a summary of the course evaluations for the review file. e. Letters of appreciation (Optional) 86 The candidate may submit for the review file letters of appreciation from those with whom he or she has worked in a professional capacity. f. Other material (Optional) Unsolicited statements may be received for the candidate undergoing review and placed in the review file. The DLHR notifies the candidate when such material is received. 9.4.2 Documentation Required from Candidate’s Supervisor a. Supervisor statement The supervisor writes a statement that provides a qualitative assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments, as reflected in previous annual reviews if available; and the candidate’s performance of major responsibilities, including supervisory roles and subject liaison responsibilities. The assessment should address how accomplishments and performance align with the library’s strategic agenda. The statement should conclude with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. The supervisor should be mindful that the statement will be reviewed by those unfamiliar with the candidate’s work and responsibilities. Acronyms should be spelled out. The UO style and grammar guide, How We Tell Our Story: Communication Standards for the University of Oregon, http://des.uoregon.edu/stylemanual.pdf, should be used as the authority for capitalization, proper names, punctuation, and other style and grammar issues. 9.4.3 Documentation Required from LFPC a. Letter of review For a candidate’s first contract renewal after promotion to associate librarian and alternate contract renewals thereafter, the LFPC does not review the candidate’s review file or write a letter of review. For a candidate’s second contract renewal after promotion to associate librarian and alternate contract renewals thereafter, the LFPC writes a letter of review based on its consideration of the candidate’s review file. In the letter the LFPC evaluates the candidate’s performance in relation to the criteria for contract renewal, with particular emphasis on criterion (c), contributions in professionally acknowledged venues. 9.4.4 Documentation Required from Dean a. Letter of recommendation regarding contract renewal 87 The dean writes a letter based on review of the candidate’s review file and concludes with a recommendation regarding contract renewal. ______________________________________________________________________ 10. Timely Notice and Appeals Timely notice of employment termination is given if a contract is not renewed for reasons other than just cause or financial exigency. In some situations, an appeal of the decision to deny contract renewal or promotion may be submitted. The page, Officers of Administration, hr.uoregon.edu/oa/, provides an overview of policies and practices related to employment status, with links to relevant source documents.