аЯрЁБс>ўџ +-ўџџџ*џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС[ №Пbjbjтт ""€j€jџџџџџџlрррррррє  єaЖ,,,,,,,,ртттттт$ 7~р,,,,,dрр,,ddd,Ор,р,рd,рd|dрррр,  "Р№фцСєъ:рр10aрЕ$@ЕрdєєррррйMAUT Librarians’ Section Report on the April 8th meeting with VP Masi Darlene Canning, Pat Riva and I met with VP Tony Masi on April 8th, in a two hour meeting which was quite stimulating and opened up some areas of discussion. We agreed on the need to work towards consensus quickly so that there can be a staffing plan for the libraries because the libraries have seen almost no academic renewal. We discussed staff renewal at all levels of staff, librarians and non-librarians, because a staffing policy must address the libraries as a whole. We then focused on librarians and what T. Masi saw as the two main issues in terms of a staffing plan: (1) the 2001 regulations have given rise to a re-interpretation by the university administration of the criteria for evaluation of librarians’ academic duties and (2) he recognizes the need to renew staff in the libraries immediately but his current sources of funding are soft, e.g. Tomlinson money, contrat de performance money. He did affirm support for certain basic principles: academic status, 3 categories of academic duties, we would continue to be chap. 2 of the Handbook of Regulations, peer review, involvement in university governance, secured appointment whatever its label. He expressed the view that chap. 2 of the regulations is now too much in parallel with chap. 1. He was well aware that it was the university administration that had pushed for congruence between the two chapters, but said this congruence had lead to a re-interpretation of criteria which was creating problems for recruitment and promotion of qualified new librarians. He made of point of stating that, as VP (IST), he has a minor role in the decisions about reappointment and tenure, and while understanding our point that the new regulations were not written with the intention of ЮлЮлВннЎЪгЦЕ the criteria, he was not in a position to change the perceptions of the other Vice-Principals and the rest of the university administration. He asked the librarians to come up with a proposal about possible changes to chap. 2 to create an easier climate for hiring and retention of librarians. He was in agreement that if a position is not going to be permanent, then it has to be attractive. He pointed out the need for some sort of career progression for a non-tenure-track position, and we stressed the importance of involvement in the three areas of academic duties so that the person holding the position remains attractive on the job market. We pointed out the importance of experience in an academic library as a key element sought by university and research libraries even for entry-level positions. The MLIS may be the end degree, but it is the one or two years experience in an academic library that complete the education of a new librarian. However, if we train and cannot retain our contract librarians, this represents an enormous financial drain on the library system. In the discussion about ways to hold on to new librarians on short-term appointments, T. Masi expressed that he would like to see a way that would allow the promotion of contract librarians to a tenure-track rank without necessarily having to initiate a new search. Terminology was seen as one possible way to break the parallelism between chap. 1 and 2, though we said that this issue would need careful thought and discussion among the librarians to examine the consequences. One could retain the changes that were introduced to ensure natural justice in our procedures, and parallel numbering. Just as we use “Director of Libraries” instead of “Dean” and “Administrative Librarian” instead of “Department Chair”, we could also look at additional ways that would break the surface parallelism while retaining the fundamental structural and legal parallelism. On the subject of terminology, we ended up discussing the term “sessional librarian”. Tony Masi would to like to change the term "sessional librarian" immediately. The adjective “sessional” seems to cause confusion for many who are not thoroughly familiar with the regulations. When one reads the regulations, it is evident that sessional librarian is the equivalent of faculty lecturer. But the term “sessional” conveys a transitory nature which is not necessarily inherent in the rank. It seems to be a carry-over from earlier days when the length of the appointment was likely to be less than a full year, e.g. Sept. to May. However, a sessional may be appointed for a term of up to three years, and if continuously employed for five years may be appointed for an unlimited term. It would be useful to find a new term that better conveys what is meant by that rank. T. Masi had expressed the hope of seeing a new term approved by Senate and the Board before the end of May for June 1st implementation, if we were able to agree on the change and a term quickly. The changes made in the 2001 regulations have taught us a valuable lesson. Though no re-interpretation of criteria occurred in that document, the new regulations became an opportunity for certain elements in the university administration to initiate a re-interpretation. Thus, any new changes to the regulations will have to be made with very careful consideration of all possible interpretations. However, we also want to see an end to the stalemate on academic renewal for the libraries. I feel that we need to respond fairly quickly to VP Masi to show a willingness to partner with him in finding a good path forward for librarians while also moving in such a way that we do not jeorpardize the working conditions of future librarians. Chris Oliver Chair, MAUT Librarians’ Section April 18th, 2002 /1HˆŠЈЋњіёіяяяH* 5H*\5\ 5CJ\ GHцчлмS T uvЫЬ#јљопрэ љ№ыыщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщщ$a$$„а^„аa$„^„§ 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А i8@ёџ8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font6>`ђ6 Title$„а^„аa$ 5CJ\"џџџџGHцчлмSTu v ЫЬ#јљопрэ !˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€BFy}PTЛТФ Ш (,OX€‰_hLU6:ЃЎ!ю"М Ф ‹мх!33339Gи и р!џџ Libraries0N:\MAUT Librarians Sect\report of Apr. 8 mtg.docџ@€ЄпВ`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"qˆ№аh{’d†™’d† 3= &!№ ДД20e2ƒQ№џџMAUT Librarians Section Libraries Librariesўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0ˆ˜МШмшє ( D P \hpx€фMAUT Librarians’ Section0AUT Librariesriibribr Normal.doti Librariesi4brMicrosoft Word 9.0c@vнA@*’0сцС@FgвфцС3=ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp”œЄЌ ДМФЬ д љфЮлЮлВннЎЪгЦЕ University Libraries& e2 MAUT Librarians’ Section Title ўџџџўџџџ !ўџџџ#$%&'()ўџџџ§џџџ,ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFЖФ№фцС.€1TableџџџџџџџџџџџџWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ""SummaryInformation(џџџџDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ"CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџЖФ№фцСЖФ№фцСџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq