ATTENDANCE: 23
GUEST: Christine Hiller
1. Welcome and Call to Order
Elaine Yarosky, Chair, welcomed attending members and announced that Barbara Hales, President of MAUT, was unable to attend.
2. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was adopted with a change in the order of reports, as moved by S. Slavin, seconded by P. Riva.
3. Adoption of Minutes of Section Meeting, November 17, 1997
The minutes of the last meeting were adopted, as circulated.
4. Business Arising from the Minutes
Business arising concerning academic regulations and accompanying documents, salaries data, guidelines for merit allocation, finances and the AMUL award were discussed in other items on the Agenda.
5. Policy Issues
5.1 AMUL AWARDM. Fransiszyn briefly reviewed the history of the award and outlined some of the proposals suggested in the course of deciding its future direction.
DISCUSSION:
V. Mayman concurred with the proposal to redirect it to fund a speaker series with "literary types", not librarians, featured.
John Hobbins suggested that we investigate what exactly we can do with the fund and that we stop contributing to it in the meantime.
E. Maclean said that we have to discuss it with the McGill Scholarship Committee.
E. Yarosky suggested that the award be given to any library school student of merit, not only to library staff enrolled in the programme.
S. Slavin suggested the award be added to the library school scholarship fund.
ACTION TAKEN: S. Slavin proposed, seconded by I. Murray, that the Secretary make enquiries whether we are obligated to spend the existing fund as a scholarship and if so, to investigate adding it to the library school scholarship fund; if not, the fund should be used to fund a speaker series. The results of the enquiry will be brought up at thenext meeting. Passed unanimously.
E. Maclean also suggested that the University scholarship committee and the Graduate School of Library Science be notified that we will no longer award the fund.
6. Reports
6.1 Chair’s Report
6.1.A Merit
E. Yarosky reported on the new guidelines for merit distribution and the possibility of having an observer from the MAUT Librarians' Section being on the Merit Committee. She said that F. Groen said she would not chair this committee.John Hobbins said that he does not recall the first statement being true and that it would have to be clarified with F. Groen.
6.1.B Salaries
The average salary of librarians at McGill is supposedly higher than those at the group of ten institutions. F. Groen has stated that she feels the issue would best be handled by MAUT and the Academic Salary Policy Sub-Committee.E. Yarosky said that according to Association of Research Libraries figures just received from the Director’s Office, McGill librarians’ salaries ranked as follows with other universities in Canada:
Average salary: 10 of 13 for 1997 and 1998
Median salary: 8 of 13 for 1997 and 9th of 13 for 1998
Beginning Salary: 9 of 13 for 1997 and 10 of 13 in 1998but that this includes only some group of ten institutions.
E. Yarosky replied that MAUT was supposed to investigate further, but so far nothing had happened.
John Hobbins stated that he believed we should pursue it with them and E. Yarosky agreed.
A group had been formed consisting of M. Berger, J. Aitkens, and J. Hebert to investigate the matter and it will continue its work into the next year.
6.1.C Sabbaticals
E. Yarosky reported that this year two librarians had had difficulties with sabbatical applications. One case has been resolved successfully. They had been told that sabbaticals had to be directly related to job responsibilities and/or library science; that a record of previous publication was required and that a contract from a publisher was important.. The Executive of MAUT had recommended that we not confront the administration but pursue each case through grievance if necessary. She advised that any librarian who encounters difficulty with their applications should consult an MAUT advisor a s soon as possible.M. Richard commented that this may be a "one-year blip" but if not, it may become a trend and could cause difficulty for other librarians down the line.
John Hobbins said he thinks we should write immediately to the Vice-Principal Academic and the issue should not be pursued as the basis of individual grievance but on the principle of the issue.
V. Mayman said that it would be helpful to remind the Vice-Principal Academic of past practice.
I.Murray revealed that she was one of two librarians who had had difficulty in this matter. She said that the Vice-Principal had said that past practice was of no interest to him. She pointed out at the subject component of some librarian positions was not clear-cut.
John Hobbins said that he thought the Vice-Principal expressed the view that he did because he wants to stop the practice of using sabbaticals to obtain a graduate degree which one of the applicants had done.
I.Murray stated that the process was alarming and that she was glad that it was finally resolved in her favour.
J. Andrews wondered if this issue had anything to do with promotion, i.e. if librarians are academics and since, for promotion, job performance plus other academic and professional activities are considered, then should not the same logic apply to sabbatic leave?
ACTION TAKEN
John Hobbins moved, seconded by S. Slavin, that the MAUT Librarians' Section Executive should take up the matter with the Vice-Principal Academic directly and request that the Vice-Principal state his views in writing. Passed.
P. Riva stated that she does not think we have to do exactly what MAUT advises but act on our own if necessary.
6.1.D Staff Reduction & Increased Workloads
The Chair reported that these problems were becoming increasingly serious at McGill and other university libraries in Canada. McGill has lost 21 librarians since May 1995. The CAUT and other organizations are conducting research on downsizing in Canadian university libraries.M. Richard outlined the University of Toronto survey on library downsizing in which several McGill librarians had been asked to participate. The web site for the survey will be added to the MAUT Librarians' Section home page (http://www.library.mcgill.ca/mautlib/).
E. Maclean commented that there was also a problem with library assistants and that McGill had lost 50 in the same period.
6.2 NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT - E. Gibb
E. Gibb reported on the work of the Nominating Committee which had resulted in the following appointments:
P. Riva Vice-Chair/Chair-elect, MAUT Librarians’ Section
M. Fransiszyn Secretary-Treasurer, MAUT Librarians’ Section
J. Schachter Promotion to Librarian Committee
J. Hebert Academic Salary Policy Committee
L. Piatti FQPPU Comite ad hoc sur les bibliotheques
6.3 Treasurer's Report
M. Fransiszyn distributed copies of her report and summarized the contents , concluding with the observation that the Section has a continuing surplus.
MEMBERSHIP FEES
PROPOSAL TO LOWER MEMBERSHIP FEES
V. Mayman moved , seconded by S. Slavin, that membership fees be lowered to $15.00.
DISCUSSION
J. Andrews thought that the surplus should be used for the speaker series.
M. Fransiszyn suggested that Section fees be abolished altogether and that we receive funding from MAUT.
E. Maclean said this should be explored with the MAUT Council.
J. Hebert said that this was an interesting proposal but it would mean we would become a MAUT committee rather than a Section.
P. Riva expressed a similar concern She said we only needed $500 a year to operate on and we would give up a lot and our clout would be reduced.
S. Grant commented that MAUT does not have a large surplus every year, that in fact MAUT revenues are declining, and that she agrees with J. Hebert and P. Riva.
John Hobbins found the suggestion embarrassing and suggested we reduce Section fees to $20.00.
M. Richard agreed and would opt for financial and political autonomy.
J. Aitkens asked what the membership wanted the Executive to do with the money. Special lunches and a web site were some suggestions.
E. Gibb said the fee should be kept at $25.00.
ACTION:
V. Mayman withdrew her motion.
PROPOSAL
S. Slavin moved, seconded by J. Hebert, to lower the membership fee for this year to $15.00.
ACTION:
The motion was defeated.
6.4 PAST CHAIR’S REPORT - M. Richard
M. Richard reported that he has almost completed a manual of procedure for the Section.
Re the Nominating Committee, there is still the question of whether the Nominating Committee should only look after nominations to vacancies on MAUT Librarians' Section committees or whether it should also take it upon itself to nominate people for external committees like the Senate Committee on Libraries.
The Archives of the Section are to be deposited with the University Archives. M. Richard had not completed his review of existing documents before they are deposited but he is willing to continue to do this beyond his mandate.
He has almost completed a records management policy.
6.5 PROFESSIONAL ISSUES COMMITTEE - C. Oliver
C. Oliver reported that a draft of the Criteria for Reappointment had been posted on AMUL-L on May 28, that it had been rewritten in light of the revised Chapter 2, and that the Committee would like feedback on this as well as on the other posted documents.
E. Yarosky thanked the Committee for their excellent work.
John Hobbins suggested that regarding membership on the reappointment committee, a tenured librarian should be appointed by the Executive of the Section on an ad hoc basis rather than be elected for three years.
PROPOSAL
John Hobbins moved, seconded by D. Duncan, that the MAUT Librarians’ Section representative to the Reappointments Committee should be appointed by the Section each time and that it was imperative that the librarian not be from the same area as the candidate.
DISCUSSION
M. Richard said that there is still an opportunity for fine-tuning of the Regulations before they are approved by Senate and if it is a major point, it can be addressed at Senate.
E. Maclean wished to make two points: should the representative be elected or appointed on an ad hoc basis or for three years? She also asked about provision for an alternate.
John Hobbins said that in his experience, librarians do not excuse themselves when their presence is required for a committee hearing.
V. Mayman thought that appointments to this committee should be ad hoc.
J. Hebert said that faculty appointment committee members were reappointed each time.
E. Yarosky said that the Executive will reexamine and reword this section of the Regulations.
ACTION TAKEN
The motion passed.
6.6 ACADEMIC SALARY POLICY COMMITTEE - J. Hebert
J. Hebert reported that there had been no salary policy for a long while. Salary increases had come mainly from merit and anomaly corrections.
She stated that according to CARL figures, our salaries are very close to the national average, so that we are not as badly-paid as teaching faculty, when measured against other Canadian institutions. Anomaly money is reserved for extreme cases. For a meaningful merit exercise, the merit money pool should be at least 1% of the total salary budget. 1% of the salary budget would be about $1,000,000. Currently, about $1,320,000 is available for both merit and anomaly awards, most of which will be awarded as merit pay, with about $70,000 - $80,000 available for anomaly correction.
She said that we have to have a salary policy but with the cutbacks, there is not much money available. The Administration maintains that salaries are low but benefits are good. But J. Hebert said that it seems that McGill spends the least on its benefits and that this is not encouraging.
S. Mohammed asked why both anomaly and merit should be lumped together.
6.7 SENATE HIGHLIGHTS
V. Mayman cut short her report on Senate meetings. She said that some senators give oral reports at faculty meetings but there was always a good summary in the McGill Reporter. The focus of Senate had been to set up a joint Senate-Board meeting to get feedback to the Principal to respond to a Government consultation document, "Universities and the Future....". This will affect us profoundly.
Other studies under way are one on funding and another on rationalization of university programmes (CREPUQ). The government makes a distinction between faculty teaching and faculty doing research, which should cause debate here. Another controversial element is the idea that the government is the interpreter of society's needs. Quebec has a lower percentage of population with a university degree. It has a 63% graduate success rate. There is no mention in the document of the relation between research and better teaching.
The rationalization study examines interchangeable credits and more coordination with CEGEP's.
It is the third independent body to evaluate universities. There is a public demand for greater accountability from higher education. Professors fear the "CEGEP-ization" of universities.
J. Aitkens commented that more money has been earmarked for first year students.
M. Richard spoke of "modulation", a French term which in the context of Quebec's francophone universities. means the practice of putting more and more "charges de cours" (sessional lecturers) in charge of teaching undergraduate courses and of having full-time professors concentrate more and more on research and on graduate studies. This practice has been a trend in Quebec universities, especially in the French sector, in recent years.
6.8 SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES - J. Aitkens
J. Aitkens reported on the business of the Senate Committee on Libraries. It had asked where the $3 million had gone and the Director of Libraries laid it out in December. She was also asked why there had been no more cuts on the staff side.
The Criteria for allocating the Director’s Discretionary Funds have been established. These include:
- subject areas with demonstrated lacunae
- support for new programs
- will not be used for the Rare Books Department, conservation, or multiple copies of textbooks.
A question was raised as to whether the Director’s discretarionary funds could be used for serial subscriptions but this has not been decided definitely.
Regarding the budget discussion at the SCL meetings, theVice-Principal had said the budget was inadequate. The 2.3% cut was to come out of the non-book budget. F. Groen had questioned the overhead fee on endowments which was going up to 10% next year.
The Director of Libraries is trying to get the discretionary funding increased from $200,000 to $500,000.
The Director of Libraries had spoken of the generous gifts from the Students Society of McGill University and the Arts Undergraduate Society for equipment and collections.
6.9 FQPPU - L. Piatti
L. Piatti reported on the activities of the FQPPU Ad Hoc Committee on Libraries and Librarians subcommittee. The Ad Hoc committee was working on two projects. The first dealt with the impact of budget cuts on the University libraries while the second concerns itself with the working conditions of Librarians in University libraries.
The results of the first questionnaire, dealing with budget cuts, will be worked on during the summer and it is hoped that a report will be available for the meeting of the Conseil federal of FQPPU which will be held October 1-2, 1998.
The Librarians sub committee of the FQPPU .Ad Hoc Committee on Libraries is working on the questionnaire which dealt with the working conditions of librarians in University libraries. It is hoped that the findings of this questionnaire will be published in a forthcoming issue of "L'Universite", the FQPPU newsletter.
7. New Business
John Hobbins stated that he wished to comment on J. Hebert's statement that you had to "pull up your socks" if you received only $500 merit. He said that merit is positive and relative.
E. Yarosky thanked executive members Marc Richard, Jane Aitkens and Marilyn Fransiszyn for their hard work and support during the year. She also thanked the Professional Issues committee members, all our representatives on University and professional committees, and Bob Clarke, moderator of AMUL-L.
She then welcomed the incoming executive and turned the meeting over to Jane Aitkens, Chair of the MAUT Librarians’ Section for 1998/99.
J. Aitkens thanked E. Yarosky, the outgoing Chair, M. Richard, the Past Chair, and welcomed P. Riva to the Executive as Chair-Elect.
She stated that it was too late to bring up the web site issue.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00pm as moved by L. Piatti and seconded by V. Mayman.
M. Fransiszyn
Secretary
June 28, 1998