LFA Exec - Minutes - Special Meeting - February 5, 2026

LFA Special Meeting
February 5, 2026

12:00pm – 1:00pm

Attending: Carol Smith, Mike Broadwell, Christy McWard, Courtney Foat, Mary Roach, Grace Brazell (LSA Rep), Josh Bolick (chair), Elspeth Healey (vice chair), Amanda Schlumpberger (secretary), Angie Rathmel, Samantha Bishop-Simmons, Scott McEathron, Kent Miller, Scott Hanrath, Beth Whittaker, Whitney Baker, Jill Becker, Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Jason Dean, E Durham, Gwen Geiger Wolfe, Jon Giullan, Sam Greeson, Kelly Hangauer, Michiko Ito, Caitlin Donnelly Klepper, Miloche Kottman, Milton Machuca-Galvez, Sarah McCall, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Sara Morris, Carmen Orth-Alfie, Sara Outhier, Amber Ovsak, Michael Peper, Chris Pincock, Rebekah Ramos, Brian Rosenblum, Adrienne Sanders, Kate Stewart, Eve Wolynes

Absent:    N/A

Minutes

Welcome
- Dialogue principles addressed: balance speaking and listening, stay open, and present, treat each with respect, and be mindful of inclusivity and confidentiality
Dean Statement
- Addressed that reason for meeting is part of a larger context
- Addressed that there is an environment where personnel actions, legal issues, and collective bargaining will limit some things that can be spoken on
  - Addressed that she will use generalities to work in this context of what can be spoken on
- Emphasized the importance of addressing communication
- She requested a dialogue, not interrogation [AR1]
Questions and statements of concern dialogue
- Concern: tension between management, operations, and the strategic plan. It seems a lot of concerns about transparency are rooted in that tension.
- Concern: On transparency: prior to current Dean’s tenure, the provost provided 6 priorities to Library Leadership, this is important to keep working on: DEIB, evaluate organizational climate, rep from faculty and staff in the Dean’s cabinet, sharing the rationale for decisions (would help faculty be better ambassadors for libraries), long term strategic plan
  - Dean response
    - this is the first she has heard about these priorities
    - She pushed back on the org climate. She said we have made progress on this. She also emphasized that this is everyone’s responsibility. She has seen that we are developing a new way of being through SET, start-up funds, and participatory leadership (it is fragile right now). She knows it is going to take time, but we have built a lot of tools. She emphasized the importance of mutual responsibility for using those tools and letting them flourish. She also acknowledged that there is history in the org that we are operating in.
- Concerns about bringing us to more parity with teaching faculty in terms of pay (9-month v. 12 month)
  - Dean response:
    - Her history as defender of full faculty model for librarians. She has continued that work here. In Fall 24 she co-led a CONFAB on competitive salaries, and in Spring 25 she led and participated in a panel. Also, she noted that we are in collective bargaining, so suggested speaking to Union
    - Emphasized that this is an ongoing dialogue with Dean and all faculty in the governance structure
    - Sees her role as Librarian first, so the Union is an awkward situation
    - She can’t tell us everything she is doing and taking action, but assured us that it is happening
- Concern: Organizational climate concern about disparaging comments and blame placed on staff that is very disheartening. It makes it hard to work with and manage teams, as well as combatting disinformation out there.
  - Dean Response:
    - That pain of staff pay is being acknowledged at the university level
    - Asked faculty if willing to share who disparaging comments were from? Faculty said from admin and leadership w/in libraries, not dean.
    - Dean noted her relational role, so asked if faculty would be willing [AR2] to share those comments, because this is the first time she has heard them from w/in the libraries. She emphasized that she can’t do anything unless she knows what is going on. She invited faculty to share that information to her so she can communicate that up the relational chain.
- Concern: Selective raises around the change to “major division,” being a surprise. Concern was what that means and why it wasn’t widely communicated. Concern that it felt intentionally hid. Asked the Dean to address this change.
  - Dean Response:
    - Emphasized the hierarchy present in higher education. Because of her experiences she is on-guard for things would weaken or strengthen our position. For example, on KU analytics libraries are not listed as an academic unit. So, anything that makes us distinctive could harm the Libraries. [AR3]
    - Emphasized that personnel changes are happening everyday, with internal people moving to new positions
    - Organizational changes: She emphasized that this will be undertaken over time as it is organic. So, for this situation there was a retirement that occurred in Fiscal Management. When she arrived was being managed by excel and it is causing issues. So, when the fiscal manager retired this was an opportunity to strengthen KU Libraries. So, they rewrote that role to a new position. In looking at strengthening that position to get more out of budget, they noticed that directors weren’t listed as directors of major division/schools like other directors across campus. So, she saw that as a position that needed to be addressed (her goal is to recognize libraries on par with other schools/divisions). When rewritten there were severe inversion issues with pay that had to be corrected. She recognized the optics with this [AR4]
    - Her strategy: the change actually moves us into a stronger position with will make opportunities for everyone
    - Additional response from leadership: the change to major unit only affected staff positions because faculty is in collective bargaining
- Concern: How does the major division/school helps us?
  - Dean Response:
    - Speaking from her experience small things like not having those classifications, that it can lead to dismantlement. So, collectively it strengthens our position. She emphasized the importance of eliminating difference [AR5] between faculty and library faculty.
- Concern: Faculty expressed gratitude for this dialogue and open communication, and opportunity to provide feedback. Faculty would like to know what/what the dean is doing to advocate for KU Libraries w/ KU admin. Message from KU admin about investing in people rings hollow in face of its actions.
  - Dean Response:
    - Agreed about the communication issues and impact.
    - Offered to set up this dialogue regularly in the future.
    - She can’t answer the what/can she do question directly, but she assured us that she is taking actions.
    - Acknowledged that there is a distrust and terrible optics. She noted things have to happen in a certain order. She is frustrated with internal barriers at KU to her plan to lead KU Libraries.
    - Thanked faculty and staff for pushing to an inflection point.
    - She noted she is shifting her strategy to push further, for example in pushing for the technical staffing.
In interest of time, LFA collected following concerns without expectation of time for response, but to be addressed in continuing dialogue in the future.
- Concern: Frustrated more by the Dean’s silence than the action in the overall situation, which sowed distrust.
- Concern: Doesn’t accept the major division change was necessary for maintain full faculty model.
- Concern: There is a communication model, which could allow for comment before decisions are made. The level of transparency now is creating distrust and gets in the way of creating equity
Potential actions, next steps dialogue
- Tabled for now, but acknowledged that it needs to happen. LFA chair and vice-chair meeting next week was announced and LFA exec meeting in a couple weeks. LFA exec encouraged that everyone communicate
- The Dean also encouraged everyone to continue to communicate with her and come to her.
Conclude
- Meeting adjourned at 1:04pm