LFA Exec - Minutes - November 17, 2025

LFA Meeting     
November 17, 2025 

3:00 – 4:00pm

Watson Library and Zoom

Attending:

Josh Bolick (Chair), Elspeth Healey (Vice Chair), Amanda Schlumpberger (Secretary), Scott McEathron, Angie Rathmel, Samantha Bishop Simmons, Marianne Reed, Andy Poland, Jeromy Horkman, Eric Bader, Brian Moss, Wendy Conover, Milton Machuca-Gálvez, E. Durham, Michiko Ito, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Jill Becker, Brian Rosenblum, Jon Giullian, Scott Hanrath, David Whittaker, Mary Roach, Mike Broadwell, Carol Smith, Rebekah Ramos, Jason Dean, Kate Stewart, Kat Molly, Melissa Mayhew, Rebecca Schroeder, Carmen Orth-Alfie, Sydney McFadden, Heather MacBean, Miloche Kottman, Chris Pincock, Cecilia Zhang, Sara Morris, Andi Back, Adrienne Sanders, Erin Wolfe, Michael Peper, Sara Outhier, Gwen Geiger Wolfe, Phil Cunningham, Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Beth Whittaker, Whitney Baker, John McEwan, Amber Ovsak, Sarah McCall

    

Minutes:    

 

Welcome, call to order 

  • Meeting started at 3:01pm 
  • New members 
    • Introduced new members and Josh offered to talk about governance if they wanted to

Approve minutes from Spring 2025 LFA Assembly [link] 

  • Motion to approve by Jason
  • Seconded motion by Elspeth
  • Motion carries, none opposed

LFA Committee reports 

  • LCPT (Jill) 
    • They are going through lots of files: 2 P&T and 6 in 3rd year review
  • SLPTR (Carmen)
    • Have reviewed on sabbatical leave 
    • They will have 2 files for post-tenure review in Jan.  
  • Ad Hoc for PT Guidelines (Brian) 
    • Convened a year ago to look at P&T guidelines which haven’t been updated since 2009
    • Reviewed over 40 guidelines from peer institutions 
    • Currently they are in the process of getting Libraries input. 2 focus groups have been held, and there is one more tomorrow 
    • After focus groups, they will also send out a form to submit additional comments 
    • Next Steps: synthesize all this info and make some recs. Then, they will bring it to this body for further discussion—likely a special meeting and potential ballot issues 

Eval reform status (Josh) 

  • Update: Dean comments removed, minor formatting adjustments
  • Mike has sent email with proposed revised forms and roles and docs 
  • There will be 2 sessions on the process. Did one last week, the next is Wednesday 
  • Trying to wrap this up before eval season 
  • Union is negotiating around evals, so they are taking a simple approach. 

Potential Code Changes – votes today would be send to ballot 

  • LCPT recommends (via annual report) the addition of a new standing charge: “When requested by the Dean of Libraries, review new-hire faculty files to determine if awarding tenure and/or elevated rank is appropriate.” (Jill) 
    • Background: Return from a previous standing charge 
    • Questions and Discussion: 
      • None
    • Elspeth motioned to put to ballot, Amalia second, motion passes
  • SLPTR membership (via LCPT annual report; LFA Exec - Josh) 
    • “LFA should explore reducing SLPTR membership total, and/or evaluating the need for full librarians, and/or other actions to increase the pool of eligible librarians available for LCPT membership effective FY27.” 
    • Suggested: Reduce SLPTR membership by one 
      • The Sabbatical Leave and Post-Tenure Review Committee (SLPTR) is composed of five [strike “five” replace with “four”] library faculty, either tenured or having completed their probationary period, all to be elected by LFA members eligible to vote. 
    • Discussion: 
      • Sara: important to have padding if people have to recuse and also important to have an odd number of members for voting purposes 
      • Carmen: can do with less, but not an extra person then. Need ballot and nominating need to do a good job recruiting 
      • Jamene: believes that code requires 3 people to vote, she confirmed this to be the case
      • Michael: had concerns about numbers as well. 
      • Whitney: Librarian ranks are stretched very thin in service right now
      • Jill: if nothing changes, we need to be strategic and think through how to do this, especially people with Librarian status need to serve. 
      • Carmen: can determine what is coming up, so people who can serve need to serve 
      • Josh: it is hard to get people to serve 
      • Jill: people to serve might not be aware they are needed 
      • Elspeth: 27-28 will be particularly problematic year with lots of people coming up 
      • Jamene clarified that code says 3, but LFA exe can appoint someone in some cases
      • Jamene pointed out that it is hard to plan to point out who will be submitting for sabbatical 
    • Decision made to table the topic and LFA exe think through other solutions
  • LCPT, Academic Appointments in the University Libraries (Jill) 
    • Proposed Revisions 
    • LCPT and LFA exe have looked at this already 
    • Jill walked us through the proposal 
    • Background is this was prompted by the number of people who will be going for tenure in the future 
      • A number of links in the doc are under review—we will need to update and approved revised docs once that is done. 
    • Discussion:
      • Beth and Michael: Comments are potential places for future changes 
      • Whitney: LCPT it is unclear when the review of a candidate happens. Concern is making sure it is done equitably. She would like to have clarification on the process to make sure things are equitable. 
      • Angie: the intention was to involve LCPT in any file that wasn’t an asst. librarian coming in was her understanding when she was on the committee 
      • Jill: trying to make this review when it happens clearer. Also, as a reminder there are negotiations going on that could change this all as well. 
    • Discussion concluded without any official action at this time 

Dean remarks 

  • Remarks began at 3:41pm
  • Discussion on innovation was the topic 
    • Salaries: she can’t say much right now 
    • Space plans: all interested, so will save for all-staff
  • Culture of innovation: we have one was the message. We have a number of tools and structures in place to encourage and hone that. 
  • So, the question is how we take those tools and structures and lean into them and make the organization we want 
    • That’s the conversation Carol wants to have starting in the next year. What are faculty thoughts about the structures and tools in place? Are they working? Is there something more or different? Do you agree that a healthy, vibrant, innovative culture the right goal? 
    • Carol: we have what we need, now how do we use those and refine them, but she would welcome reflection on that. We also have the KEYS survey we will be working with 
    • Carol would welcome further discussion at open office hours too
  • Discussion: 
    • Angie: How do we address the time for innovation and how that aligns with what stays, what goes away—how do we address the tension between needing time for innovation and letting things go 
      • Carol: structures and frameworks to have the conversation of letting things go. That framework needs to happen at individual, section, unit, library, etc. levels. This is also related to the sustainer conversation. 
    • Carol: we are going in the right direction, but we need to have this important conversation for it to be sustainable. 
    • Elspeth: At the university level there is more bureaucracy. So, how do you balance that university level bureaucracy with innovation and letting things go. 
      • Carol: first question in our rubric is this w/in our control. She is advocating for a middle ground with coordination and such. If it is in library control—let’s raise it and address it. If it isn’t, make sure Carol knows so she can advocate. 

New Business 

  • none

Adjourn 

  • motion to adjourn by Samantha Bishop-Simmons
  • Seconded motion to adjourn by Scott McEathron
  • Motion carried 
  • Meeting adjourned at 3:58pm