Last week I shared with Libraries staff a proposed reorganization for the Smathers Libraries. The most current version of the anticipated structure is available here: http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers_Libraries_Reorg_01242008.pdf.
As I promised in the Town Hall meeting last Friday, I am setting up this blog to share information about the proposed reorganization, seek input and answer questions. Please feel free to share your comments and ask questions. If you have a question, it is very likely that others have the same question and will benefit from the fact that you ask it. If the answer is known or knowable, I will provide it. If the answer is not yet known, I will tell you that and let you know, to the best of my ability, how and when that question will be addressed.
The UF library structure has continuously changed since its inception, enabling us to improve and expand our services and take advantage of new technology. The libraries must continue to evolve and improve even during these challenging budget times. This current reorganization will realign our human resources to help us transition into a more efficient and effective twenty-first century library system. Its implementation should be seamless for all external stakeholders: students, faculty and other library patrons.
While it is uncertain how much the Florida Legislature will reduce the 2008-2009 budget, it is almost certain that there will be a reduction. The libraries are planning for a reduction comparable to the one for 2007-2008, just under $1 million. The reorganization is not being driven by the budget, but it will improve our ability to focus on critical services and functions and that, in turn, will help us allocate the available budget, whatever it is. We will need to act strategically, eliminating unnecessary projects and reallocating people and financial resources to support our highest priorities. The reorganization will help us to identify critical vacancies that must be filled immediately as well as less critical ones that may remain unfilled.
There will be three associate deans in the new structure. The Associate Dean for Development, Sam Huang, has already been hired and will begin work on February 20th. He will report directly to me. The other associate deans will report to me through John Ingram, who is our Senior Associate Dean. One will be responsible for special collections and area studies. The other will be responsible for technology and support services. As Senior Associate Dean, John will also be responsible for the public services and collection management activities that are provided by our branch libraries. I expect to begin recruitment for the associate deans by mid-February, in hopes that we can fill them by early June. I do not expect to change the reporting structure for the interim Library Directors until we fill the associate dean positions.
The proposed structure for the libraries is a work in progress and will continue to evolve. Some details will not be worked out until the new associate deans are here and have an opportunity to participate in determining the final structure for their own areas of responsibility.
We are engaged with the Provost, UF Human Resources and Academic Personnel regarding timing and processes to make sure we comply with all requirements as we implement the reorganization. I have also asked the Library Faculty Assembly to recommend ways to establish tenure homes in the new organization. As many of you have pointed out, this is an excellent opportunity to remedy some of the long-standing issues and inconsistencies associated with the current tenure home structure.
During the coming week, I will post additional information to the blog on each of the five columns on the organization chart. This will not be the only means of communication about the reorganization, but I hope it will be a helpful one. I know it will help me and the library directors to have your comments and questions. I look forward to the dialog through the blog, in meetings and through other communications.
Judy
34 comments:
Don't be shy; participate!
Many of us at the bottom of both the "old" and the proposed organizational chart are very nervous. We appreciate the comment that none of us are going to get pink slips; however, it is very stressful not to know who we may be reporting to, what building we may be in, and sometimes, even what our daily work will be. I want to encourage strongly those of you higher up in the food chain to keep that in mind, and to communicate as much and as soon as humanly possible.
I welcome the changes, especially those holding their interim positions may have to compete with candidates on a national level. Too many move up the ranks here due to vacancies and are not necessarily deserving or a good fit for their present positions. I am sure everything will be done to get this rolling as soon as possible, seeing some additional gaps will be created (albeit temporary due to sabbatical leave).
Faculty and staff need assurance that the proposed organizational structure is not set in stone. The fact that the two deans positions will be posted in two weeks leads us to believe that our input will not make a difference.
Judy and John,
How is it that the decision-making process used to develop the reorganization seems to have been top-down when we're supposed to be operating in a shared governance structure?
I understand that uncertainty about the details of the reorganization causes concern. I assure you that we will communicate as much and as soon as possible.
There are many aspects of the proposed organization that are not set in stone.
Although we hope to begin recruitment for the two associate deans by mid-February, it will take 3 to 4 months to fill those positions. During that time we will continue to gather input and refine our ideas about the structure. We will share that information with the successful candidates and let them participate in the determining the organization of their respective divisions.
I have received some very helpful comments and suggestions already. I hope that you and your colleagues will continue to share your opinions with me and the directors through conversations, meetings, e-mail messages and this blog. We want to identify as many of the issues and opportuniies as possible before final decisions are made.
Why not open the position of Senior Associate Dean to the same level of competition as other Associate Deans?
In the all-staff meeting on the Reorganization there were several questions regarding governance and tenure, as well as uncertainty about how specifically to proceeded.
These issues are governed by the Constitution of the University of Florida in accord with the Statutes of the State of Florida and all rules and regulation pertaining thereto.
Reference: http://www.generalcounsel.ufl.edu/downloads/Constitution.pdf
Article I – “Governance shall be shared between the administration of the University and the faculty as represented in the Faculty Senate.” Library Senators, were you consulted during planning? Are you now engaged in planning? If so, please post your minutes and agendas as required by law. If not, will the Library Administration please post notes on its discussions and agendas as required regarding reorganization, tenure and the following issues.
Article III, sections 1, 3 and 6 – “Questions about the faculty status of an individual shall be resolved by a committee charged with evaluating academic qualifications in the college in which the individual is appointed. The committee shall determine status based on whether the primary assignment is the carrying out of the academic mission of the University.” Rumor, being reported out of a meeting of the Dean with Special and Area Studies Collections, is that there is discussion within Library Administration on removing (Technology) Services Libraries from faculty ranks. Is that correct? If so, what plans are being made to bring the issue before the appropriate library committee (strategic planning?)?
If this is suggested for the longer term, to be phased in over time, please provide additional information and rationale? And if so, what incentives are planned for non-tenure accruing faculty librarians (presumably in the “instructor” rank) to ensure that those who have had fingers in forming national policy will continue to work to ensure that the UF Libraries is an innovation leader?
Currently, P.I.s for grants must be tenure accruing faculty; most of the Libraries grants, in terms both of grants awarded and funds received, have originated with (Technology) Services Librarians and have benefitted both Collections and Technology Development and Infrastructure. How does Library Administration propose to weather the loss of these grants? Again, to incentivize these (non-tenure accruing) faculty? How does such a proposed structure safeguard collaborations and protect the equity of relationships between tenure-accruing and non-tenure-accruing faculty?
Article III, Section 6, clause D – “While no department or other budgetary unit of the University is obliged to accept the transfer of a faculty member from another unit or units, if a department or other unit accepts such a transfer, it must recognize the tenure status already attained by the transferring faculty member.”
Article IV Section 1 “The Faculty Senate shall be the legislative body of the University thereby providing a forum for mutual exchange of ideas between senior officers and faculty.”
Article V, Section 3, clause A, facet 1 and potentially facet 5 – “Academic Policy: This council’s area encompasses educational policy, including the creation, modification, or deletion of academic programs and units; curriculum; academic standing; relationship of academic units to each other; ...”
Policy and procedures for dissolution of a department, other than for programmatic layoff, are not clearly defined by the UF Constitution nor by Florida Statute. However, this clause suggests that they would occur by vote of members and suggest that they be ratified by the Faculty Senate. (See also, Article VI Section 1, clause C.) Note that specific responsibilities and appropriate authority is vested in the Faculty Senate for all such actions, ref. Article VI, Section 3. In the all-staff meeting on the reorganization, it was indicated that the Reorganization “may” go before Senate. Indeed, it is required to go before Senate. What action might Library Administration propose to take if departments for which merger is proposed decline to vote in favor of the transfer of tenure?
Article V, Section 3, clause B – “Responsibilities of Policy Councils. The councils make recommendations to the Senate, facilitate the implementation of policy, and serve as liaisons between the Senate and the administration within their areas.”
Article V, Section 4, clause A – “Academic Freedom, Tenure, Professional Relations and Standards Committee … shall … conduct hearings on charges involving University practices bearing upon tenure…”
Article V, Section 4, clause C – “University Libraries Committee shall assist the Director of University Libraries in maintaining and promoting the welfare of the University Libraries … The Director shall present matters of policy to the Committee in a timely manner, provide the Committee with pertinent information about library operations and services, meet with the Committee frequently … The Committee shall advise the Faculty Senate about the state of the Libraries and the Committee’s position on policy matters affecting the Libraries.
Has Library Administration communicated with the appropriate policy council and committees since the all-staff meeting on Reorganization, when it was indicated that the Reorganization may have to go but had not yet gone before Senate? If so, please post minutes, notes and agendas in compliance with Sunshine law.
Article VI, Section 2, clause A (See also Article VI, Section 3 for similar language pertaining the purpose and organization of departments.) – “A college shall be a unit of the University organized to conduct curricula of study and research, and to grant degrees.” I applaud the reorganization for attempting to form a unit more conducive to these goals. However, with regard to the question of transparent governance posted by Betsy Simpson, I wish that proposals to date would have conformed the Dean’s goal, as stated in Library Council, to provide structures for transparent communication and governance. I believe here, in her post to this blog, that she intends to do so in future, though the record of proposal to date is not transparent.
Article VI, Section 2, clause C – “periodic evaluations of each college shall be conducted”– I request that the Libraries’ faculty senators request the conduct of such an evaluation as interim indication of the state of the Libraries as it enters a state of transition. Evaluation should, presuming the need for reorganization, be supportive of the stated need and the extent to which it is presumed to be carried out. (The Constitutions gives the Evaluation no specific action for or against the Reorganization; its purpose is to inform the Senate and, I presume, that it would inform Library Administration.) I propose that the Evaluation be carried out by survey of all library staff.
Periodic evaluations of departments are also mandated (Article VI, Section 3, clause D). Again for purposes designed to inform the Reorganization, I request that our Faculty Senators seek to initiate department evaluations.
Article VI, Section 6 (or Section 7) – …
Here's the full reference:
http://www.generalcounsel.ufl.edu/downloads/
Constitution.pdf
Hey, as a procedural point, maybe those associate deans should be held until Faculty Senate gets a look at the new structure.
Will pink slips completely be out of consideration. Because such a reorganization make it ideal to clean house. It is about time some of the lazy people get dismissed or at least warned or scared somehow. I know I work in a department where the collective statistics of the staff is satisfactory so supervisors look the other way, but if you went to the individual level you would find people that just get by on not contributing much. I would look for a way to make it easier to fire people no matter how short-staffed we are.
It does appear that the reorganization is intended to cluster like functions. While initially it brings to mind the saying "form follows function" and that seems logical, it is interesting to read the Wikipedia entry: "In the context of design professions form follows function seems like good sense but on closer examination it becomes problematic and open to interpretation. Linking the relationship between the form of an object and its intended purpose is a good idea for designers and architects, but it is not always by itself a complete design solution." Personally, I think we need a shared "enterprise vision" before we design its form.
I agree with Stephanie re. a shared enterprise vision, which in my mind is related to the strategic planning process http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/admin/strategic_plan/index.html. Could the dean/directors share a report with the library of the results of the strategic planning task forces?
The Public Service Department Chairs (minus Pam who was sick) met this morning and came up with an alternative organization chart in the interest of positive solutions. We feel that this will equalize the responsibilities of the two new Associate Deans. We also feel strongly that there should be a mechanism for coordinating collections and services with the elimination of collection management, reference and access services as separate departments. We looked at organizational charts from other ARL libraries and this seems more akin to the norm:
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/fefdl/visio-org%20chart.pdf
We thought Middle Managers would be a good forum for discussion of the reorganization. Lori, Leilani and I will be at the meeting tomorrow morning to answer questions about the proposed changes.
We started a discussion in Middle Managers about the part of the org chart that deals with IT staff reassignments to what is now Systems. I said that I think it can work and makes sense to allocate resources centrally but there are some concerns we should talk about. Will pointed out that the physical location of these people would likely not change. Some of the concerns expressed:
- Priorities of these people would change to Systems' priorities and public service emphasis would be lost.
- IT staff could be pulled at any time for other jobs (Will pointed out that this has always been the case when emergencies arise that require systems liaison help).
- Loss of departmental FTE - IT staff do other jobs (desk shifts, reserves at critical times of year, etc.)
- Who evaluates these people?
Will mentioned that one of the advantages of this plan is that IT staff could be cross-trained to step into other areas when someone is out sick, on vacation, etc.
I left the meeting feeling like we could work out the concerns, but I hope some of the IT folks and others will weigh in on this blog discussion.
Personally I am very excited about the upcoming changes. I know I have spoken with Will and look forward to the new challenges. I think if anything, and i am just speaking from my point of view, the level of service that we have been able to provide up to this point will just go up. If we are reporting to systems, then we will be directly in the loop and the level of communications will be better. This can only translate into better service for all of the libraries.
I too am looking forward to the changes- as Evan has pointed out, there is great potential for the improvement of service to the libraries. At this time, I do have Reference duties ( Library instruction, research assistance desk shifts, Ask A) that I enjoy greatly, and I do wonder what will happpen to this part of my work life. On the balance, though, there is much to be positive about.
Quick comments. (1) I endorse a proposal made yesterdary by Joe Aufmuth at the Middle Managers meeting. I think it is a good idea to create a committee or super-committee to gather input and organize comments on reorganization and then put forward a recommendation for a plan. This would alter the library time schedule--it would probably be Fall before we had an agreed-upon structure and could advertise for associate deans; but if there are decent prospects for keeping these salary lines open until 2008-2009 and if we are sure we can avoid getting tied down in a renewed hiring freeze, we should take the extra time to work through alternate proposals for reorganization. This would allow us to comply with the constitutional structure of UF which (as Erich and Joe have noted) requires that a reorganization plan move through various senate committees and policy councils for approval. (2) A personal opinion--I think we should start hiring back vacant staff, faculty, and chair positions in the most crucial areas. I don't think we need the input of incoming associate deans to do this. Many of the positions that are now vacant are standard positions--we're always going to need people in them, and the position descriptions are always going to be more or less the same. It would help stablize operations to fill them.
All,
Another relevant section of the UF Constitution is in Article 6 (Organizational Units of the University)), Section 3 (The Departments), the introductory paragraph.
"The Departments shall be the fundamental unit of academic and administrative organization within the University. Departments shall be either professional function departments or teaching and research departments. For purposes of organization and budgets, each teaching and research department shall be assigned to one and only one college. The formation of a department, its consolidation with other departments, its transfer from one college to another, or any other move which changes the original character of the department shall require the approval of the Faculty Senate."
There is a question if the Library is a professional function department or a teaching and research department or some other kind of department.
Cathy Martyniak
Chair, University Constitution Committee
Looking at the organization chart offered by Dean Russell, it seems that the position of Senior Associate Dean is the linchpin of this entire reorganization.
I agree with the sentiment expressed above that a nation wide search be conducted to ensure that the very highest level of competence, vision, leadership and technological understanding be brought to this position of utmost importance.
I realize most of us have paper copies of some iteration of the chart, but it would also be helpful to have a link to it here (on the sidebar) and maybe also a space where alternative conceptions such as the one from the Public Services Chairs could be viewed, doodled on, and rearranged... tech folks, is there something that is like a wiki for designs and diagrams rather than text?
I just removed an offensive personal attack from these comments. I will do the same for any other posts that are aimed at hurting individuals rather than contributing to the discussion of reorganization issues.
I did not do this lightly or without careful consideration. I do not want removal of this one post to have a chilling affect on others’ legitimate use of this blog to express their opinions.
The purpose of this blog is to solicit a broad base of input to a process which is affecting our entire organization and the campus we serve. It is not to provide a forum for anonymous personal attacks.
I will continue to allow anonymous posts so that people who wish to express relevant opinions will have a place to speak, even if they do not they wish to be identified. I believe it is important to offer that option. However, I cannot, and will not, allow anyone to use this venue as a shield for personal remarks that dampen constructive discourse and erode collegiality.
Obviously we are not the first or only organization to deal with change, and there is a wealth of literature available concerning it. There were workshops to support the transition of cataloging and acquisitions during their merger a few years ago. I still have some handouts on the process individuals typically go through and (as a former counselor) I will share a few notes from them in the hope some will find it helpful. The workshops emphasized the importance of communication.
These four phases of the process were outlined in one of the workshops:
1. Denial (look for withdrawal and focusing on past)—recommended to provide information and explanations and let things sink in.
2. Resistance (look for self-doubt, anxiety, apathy and paradigm shift-back to zero (paradigm paralysis))—recommended to acknowledge feelings, respond with empathy, not to try to talk people out of their feelings, and to accept responses so employees continue to talk.
3. Exploration (look for attention on the future, energy and new ideas, and concern about details)—recommended to focus on priorities, provided any needed training and set short-term goals.
4. Commitment (look for being ready to focus on a plan and prepared to learn new ways)—recommended to set long term goals, concentrate on team building, create a mission statement, validate and reward those who responded to change, and look ahead.
List of Common Myths:
I’m helpless—I can’t make a difference
This is a bad thing for my career.
Management doesn’t know what it’s doing.
The proposed change will disappear.
List of Tips for Handling Change:
Strive to understand the change.
Be willing to consider new ideas and approaches.
Express concern in a positive way.
Don’t believe everything you hear.
Develop healthy outlets for tension.
Remind yourself of other difficult changes you have gotten through.
Make an effort to change before you have to.
Focus on what is, not what you wish for.
Just from me, I suggest using careful communication for accuracy and positive intent, not taking anything personally, not making assumptions, and then just doing our best. We are very strong individually and as a group, and I am sure we will make the most of whatever structure we work under to continue to provide great library service to our patron community.
My sincere thanks to Joe and Vernon and others for working together in a positive and professional way for us all.
I agree with Stephanie and Betsy’s comments about a shared vision. More than anything, we need consensus and buy-in and we don’t have it. The old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” clearly applies here. But, do we even know what’s broke? What this library needs is an in-depth self-study. One hasn’t been done since 1971, the last time the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools required one. Shareholder-based studies, such as the Future of the Libraries Report, are essential, but they are no substitute for unit level studies that employ comparative data from peer institutions. Self-study, combined with a broader strategic analysis, will produce the kind of shared vision that Stephanie and Betsy advocate.
I strongly concur with Jim Cusick’s comment that we would be better off filling essential faculty and staff positions now before the impending budget crisis hits rather than wait until new assistant deans are hired?
In general, I support a phased implementation of any reorganization but only after the faculty and staff of the new units achieve consensus. I believe we have basic agreement in SASC on most aspects of the proposed special and area studies division. Special collections, in particular, needs to emerge from the library’s hinterlands and, of course, I support the idea of a separate University Archives. However, undue emphasis has been placed on hiring the assistant dean for this division rather than dealing with the myriad and longstanding issues in special collections. Our problems, in my opinion, are not rooted in the organization chart.
I like to keep an open mind, but I am not yet chanting “Change is Good.”
Stephanie and I have crafted a vision statement and accompanying organizational chart in our hope that it will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about future directions for the library - http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/digital/reorganization/Enterprise.pdf. Your comments are most welcome.
It appears that the url in my previous post may have been cut off. You can try this alternate url - http://tinyurl.com/2un33u
or paste the previous url and make sure the last part is Enterprise.pdf
I applaud Stephanie and Betsy for their approach to the reorganization of the libraries. The addition of a vision that ties it to the ACRL Environmental Scan provides the rationale for change that many of us have found missing.
Looking at the work done by Betsy and Stephanie, I particularly like the vision statement that places the Libraries front and center in the context of the entire University not just as a provider of information but also of tools to manage and evaluate information and as promoters of information literacy. A couple of comments:
The addition of the "Emerging Technologies" box is very exciting. I see a role for a group of technical experts who can provide support for new initiatives. However, it needs to be closely linked to public services and driven by library-wide priorities informed by an effective user evaluation program. There might be an associated group in Public Services to make that link - or perhaps a standing committee. In our current organization, we have some long standing communication gaps between policy-making bodies and the technicians whose expertise is vital to support of those policies and goals. How can we help to bridge that gap organizationally?
While the ACRL assumptions are useful, a continuous program of user feedback is crucial to defining meaningful goals and an important part of the self study process which Carl advocates in his recent post. We need to think about where the primary responsibility for user evaluation falls and how we coordinate it.
A question for Betsy and Stephanie: were the Branches intentionally left separate without a coordinator? Just curious ...
I could not even begin to conceptualize the possible organization of Library West without putting something down on paper. The following org chart (link below) represents only my own musings with informal input from a few colleagues and graphics by Stacey Ewing. The boxes represent functions and not people. This is not official in any way, but your comments are welcome. The link to the chart is: http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/hss/
reorg/LibWest_OrgChart_Sketch.pdf
Stephanie may want to chime in here, too, but yes, we deliberately left out the Rotating Chair position. The rationale for having a rotating chair wasn't clear - is it to you? As someone admittedly not immersed in the area, it struck me as unnecessarily adding an extra layer of hierarchy, i.e., why not let each branch head have a voice at the table? When Resource Services existed, it was sometimes frustrating that the section chairs didn't have direct reports to the division director and were not allowed to represent their areas, which were each significantly large, at Library Council.
The proposed branch structure doesn't add a layer of hierarchy, it actually eliminates one by having the rotating chair report directly to the Sr. Assoc. Dean. I think the branches, including the proposed virtual Business branch, would feel pretty confident having one of the branch heads advocating for them to someone very near the top of the org chart...
That's a valid point, Pat. Sounds like it might be better to have the rotating chair, and I understand that's what the branches prefer - makes for a win-win.
Post a Comment