What Policies Govern UTFA Librarian Members?

Memorandum of Agreement (MoA): provides ACADEMIC FREEDOM protection; includes information on research and study leaves; outlines some of the librarians responsibilities and rights. This document stipulates how UTFA negotiates with UofT on behave of faculty and librarians. This document is currently being revised.

1991 Librarians Policy

WLPP Workload Policies and Procedures Workload Policies and Procedures. This document outlines the annual review process, how you can collegially negotiate your workload and defines your three areas of responsibilities. Revisions to this document have also been submitted.

You Asked: “What is wrong with the U of T POLICIES FOR LIBRARIANS?”

UTL librarians are currently discussing what is wrong with our current Policies for Librarians . The recent question posed from members is “What is wrong with our policies?” There is a lot to consider and to understand, in terms of current employment policies others have at the University of Toronto and in terms of what constitutes ‘the norm’ or ‘academic standards’ for the profession of academic librarianship in Canada. So the UTFA Librarians committee will begin to present responses to this question on this website in a series of blog postings. We should state from the start that we believe the profession of academic librarianship is a core, academic position, which requires the same academic rights and respect as those teaching. The importance and value of what academic librarians contribute to the quest for higher learning, knowledge and research equals what teaching staff contribute to an academic community. Faculty and librarians share a symbiotic relationship, interdependent upon each other. Here is a short list.

First, why are we seeking changes – what is the history of these policies?

• The Policies for Librarians were formulated in the mid-seventies and approved by U of T Governing Council in 1978. That is 38 years ago. The world, the profession of academic librarianship and post-secondary education was very different then. Article 51, Research and Study Leaves, was last up-dated in 1991. Nothing else has been renegotiated with UTFA.
• UTFA (University Faculty Association, representative for librarians) never signed off on these policies. Why? Because at the last minute, unknown to UTFA, article 46-47, pertaining to the dismissal of librarians due to fiscal stringency or financial exigency was inserted by the Executive of Governing Council without approval by UTFA.

Second, what precisely is out-of-date in the policies? Does it matter?

• Reference to 50 libraries is no longer correct (Preamble). Without a precise reference to the libraries included in a policy, it leaves the door open to discretionary changes.
• The position of the Personnel Librarian no longer exists. So where do librarians go for assistance in understanding the current policies?
• The PFL does not mention the MoA (Memorandum of Agreement) which protects librarians with academic freedom and has up-to date information on research and study leaves and outlines the grievance process; there is no mention of the WLPP Workload Policies and Procedures which outlines librarians’ workload, areas of responsibilities.
• Librarians’ responsibilities in the PFL do not correspond to those described in the WLPP or the Library Unit’s policies on workload, areas of responsibilities.
• Article 51, Research and Study Leaves, does not reflect negotiated settlements, monetary amounts or terms, approved for librarians leaves over the past 38 years.
• Since 1978 UTSC and UTM campuses have become mini-universities with large libraries. The policies do not reflect the growth or changes that have occurred in the UTL system. There is no recognition of these changes in the use of nomenclature in the policies or internal library structures or management hierarchy. For example, is it sufficient or even relevant to say  “The term department head used in this document is appropriate only in the Central Library, and shall be understood to mean for a librarian outside the Central Library, the Principal, Dean, Director or other administrative officer to whom that librarian is responsible.” (in the Preamble)? Great clarity is required.
• terminology needs to be updated and be used consistently across all library units: Why do UTSC and UTM have “Ad Hoc Promotion Committees” ? What constitutes “Ad Hoc Departmental Committee” for promotion versus “Promotion Committee” (Article 39).
• Article 51, when describing a reason for dismissing a librarian, dangerously contravenes some basic rights in the Human Rights Code and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “…where, without fault on his or her part, the librarian is prevented by a cause or matter beyond his or her control from carrying out reasonable duties, including, without limitation, physical or mental illness or injury, except where and so long as the librarian (or his or her legal representative) makes no claim against the University for salary or other remuneration.”  This is most certainly out-of-date. The policy does not reflect the University’s policies nor legislated policies.

Third, what is wrong with the librarian policies?

There are many flaws in the current policies which no longer reflect standards in the profession of academic librarians or even rights others working in the library system have acquired through their collective agreements. Our practices are not always reflected in our policies, this becomes evident when you read about what our policies say about new appointments. The list of concerns is long. So we will introduce the areas of concern in a series of blog postings. Here are some of the more serious problems in the Policies for Librarians (PFL).

New Appointments

• There are no policies or specific requirements for a SEARCH COMMITTEE when seeking new appointments. The only place where a search committee is needed is for the Chief Librarian. We need to have these details in writing for all librarian postings.
• There is no clear policy on how or where to advertise for librarian postings, leaving much discretionary control to others to interpret which leads to inconsistency across the three campuses.
• The PFL does not spell out who or how a shortlist is determined when determining the best candidates for a position. This is inadequate.
• Policies must reflect practices and vice versa. It can not be left to the good will of leaders to determine how best to interpret and proceed.

Lack of Collegial Processes and Peer Reviews in the Promotion Policies

• Unlike other institutions and as in the case with faculty at U of T, a Promotion Committee will determine when individuals are eligible for a promotion. In our policies it is the role of the supervisor: “the librarian’s supervisor should assess the librarian’s suitability for promotion and may wish to make a recommendation for such a promotion” (Article 13). What if the individual does a great job but challenges the status quo and the supervisor resists putting the person’s name forward for promotion? Is this fair? We need policies to prevent these situations.
• Criteria for permanent status lacks peer review and is based heavily on the opinion of a single individual: “31. Effectiveness in work performance shall be judged primarily, but not exclusively, on the basis of supervisory evaluations of previous performance.” This is not reflective of a collegial process in an academic environment. Normally, peer reviews pertaining to work performance play an equally prominent role. New policies need to lessen the authority of the single supervisor in the promotion process and introduce transparent processes known to everyone. Peer reviews can take different forms, they can be internal and external, and active at different stages of the process.
• There is no promotion committee formed for promotion from Librarian I to Librarian II. Who decides? “Promotion in rank from Librarian I to Librarian II is recommended by the department head subject to approval of the Chief Librarian or his or her designate. ” (Article 14).
• Rather than having a single promotion committee there are different types of promotion committees. A different kind of committee is struck for promotion in the different ranks. For example, see PFL/13, the “Ad Hoc Committee on Promotions” (for librarians outside of the Central System); PFL/15 Ad Hoc Committee (Lib II to III);  PFL/17 Senior Committee on Promotions;  PFL/39 A Committee on Permanent Status. This leads to idiosyncrasies and inconsistent standards, as well as, considerable confusion for members. Equitable treatment becomes highly questionable.

THE LIST IS LONG. THIS IS A START. WE HOPE IT HELPS TO PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION RAISED. MORE TO FOLLOW…

Status of Academic Librarians in USA

Here is a WIKI which provides the academic status of academic librarians in the USA http://academic-librarian-status.wikispaces.com/  and provides ACRL statement.

Modernizing the Appointment and Promotion Policies for UofT Librarians – What has changed?

UTFA Librarians Committee and the ACALP group are working to modernize appointment and promotion policies for academic librarians at the University of Toronto. Thank you for responding to our last survey (Survey I) – it was most successful. We have a clear mandate from UT librarians to modernize our policies for appointment and promotion. How did we get here? What has changed?

Under the leadership of Prof. Scott Prudham, President of UTFA, our policies have been ‘unfrozen’ due to the new negotiating process, simply referred to here as the facilitator and Fact-Finder process, initiated and concluded by the SJAC negotiations. You will already have received numerous updates from the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA), for more detailed information see http://www.utfa.org/content/schematic-representation-proposed-new-negotiating-framework-memorandum-agreement  and http://www.utfa.org/content/special-joint-advisory-committee-tentative-agreement-october-2014 which provides graphic and textual explanations. Simply put, it means previous ‘frozen policies’ have been ‘unfrozen’ and negotiations can commence on dated policies.

When did all this begin? Back in 2006! We have engaged in many collegial discussions about the need for new policies for librarians (ours was written in 1978). There are many members of our community to thank, faculty and librarians, who have staunchly supported modernizing the policies. and worked hard to get to this point in the last 10 years.

Here is a brief list of what has transpired (what has not been listed are the numerous membership meetings the UTFA Librarians committee have invited members to attend in recent years to discuss the various developments):

2006-2009       UTFA asked CAUT to review Policies for Librarians (Rea Devakos, Jeff Newman)

2006-2010	UTFA Librarians Committee works on new policies – rewriting policies for librarians. UTFA Appointment Committee is briefed and involved.
2010	UTFA began systematic review of policies for librarians.
June 15, 2011	UTFA Council passes motion in support of academic librarians. Motion A. UTFA AGM Newslettter 2011_Notes work on new policies for librarian policies.
July 2011	UTFA Librarians Committee prepares Guiding Principles (posted on UTLibrarians Blog)
2012 January 17, 2013	UTFA AGM Newsletter 2012 notes work on new policies for UT librarians. See UTFA_AGM_2012 Newsletter UTFA Executive passes motion in support of new appointment and promotion policies for librarians. Motion B.
2013	UTFA AGM Newsletter 2013 notes work on new policies for UT librarians, see UTFA_2013AGM Newsletter UTFA Council passes motion in support of academic librarians at UofT
2012-2014	UTFA Librarians Cttee organized several small sub-committees to work on drafting and reviewing new policies.
2012-2014	Meetings, small SJAC discussions across three campuses where the need for modernizing 37-year old policies for librarians was raised with librarians and faculty.
2014	UTFA AGM Report, written reference to needed policies for librarians published for the community. see
2014-2015	SJAC process approved
Spring 2015	AGM Report (discusses need for new policies) to all faculty and librarians. Published notice on policy issues. see UTFA-AGM2015Newsletter
Oct. 21, 2015	Town Hall for UTFA librarians, St. George campus, discussion about need for new policies.
Nov. 3, 2015	Town Hall for UTFA Librarians, St. George campus, discussion about need for new policies.
2014-2015	SJAC Issues (teaching stream, tenure changes and facilitator/Fact Finder process for negotiating) approved by UTFA and UT Governing Council.
Dec. 2015-Jan. 2016	OverDue Notices and Postcards about activities of UofT librarians goes out to community from UTFA membership committee
2016	February 24, Librarian Membership meeting held at Gerstein Library, St. George Campus with virtual connections to UTSC and UTM. UTFA Appointments Committee passes a motion in support of a new policy for librarians. Motion C. ACALP group is formed and meetings commence.

Formation of ACALP Group – Modernizing Policies for UofT Librarians

In the modernization process for up-dated appointment and promotion policies for UofT librarians, a call for volunteers to assist on an advisory committee went out to all UTFA librarians in December 2015. The ACALP  group was formed (Advisory Committee for Academic Librarian Policies). The ACALP group will take the lead in the coming months. The members of the ACALP group are:

1.Whitney Kemble, Librarian, UTSC
2.Victoria Skelton, Librarian, Industrial Relations
3.Marcel Fortin, Librarian, Robarts Library
4.Jeff Newman, Librarian, New College
5.Agatha Barc, Librarian, Pratt Library, Victoria College
6.Harriet Sonne de Torrens, Librarian, UTM
7.Stephanie Perpick, Librarian UTSC
8.Suzanne Meyers Sawa, Librarian, Music Library
9.Shelley Hawrychuk, Librarian, UTM
10.Dan D’Agostino, Librarian, CDD, Robarts
11.Heather Diggle (UTFA Legal Counsel)
12.Scott Prudham (UTFA President)
13.Michael Attridge (Chair, UTFA Appointments Cttee)
14.Jeff McKeil (Asst. Executive Director, CAUT)

“Libraries in Crisis” Special Dossier on Canada

Media Tropes has its latest issue at http://www.mediatropes.com/. vol. 5:2 (2015).

New Open Access Journal by the Canadian Association of Professional Academic Librarians Launched

For your information: Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship hosted by open access at the University of Toronto, http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal .

 

“What is it you actually do?” Lecture, March 1st, New College, 5-7 pm

UTFA and CAUT are encouraging members to attend the lecture by Sandra Grey President of the Tertiary Education Union of New Zealand and Professor, University of Wellington at 5-7 pm on Tuesday March 1 in the William Doo Auditorium in New College.

Why do Academic Librarians in Canada need secure, academic status?

The answer is simple, for one important reason, academic freedom. With academic status comes the protection of ‘academic freedom.’ Canadians do not have the First Amendment to fall back on nor the associated history of court cases that have testified that the First Amendment includes academic freedom as our American counterparts have. Our courts have yet determined if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes academic freedom. This is one of the reasons why academic librarians in Canada need the same academic freedom protection as faculty. No variations in language or definitions, deleted segments,  or imposed restrictions in academic freedom clauses or else where in policies that might redefine academic freedom differently for librarians than faculty – but the same language, same scope and same protection. Independent, critical thinking and creative perspectives, which are not always in unison with administrative or institutional criteria or mandates, are core to providing the best options in the increasingly complex world of building of networks, resources and collections for research and teaching in academic communities for today and tomorrow. For these reasons, academic freedom is a core necessity and requirement for the profession of academic librarianship in Canada.

 

UTFA Supports Academic Librarianship at U of T in a Series of Motions (2011-2016)

A. Motion Carried by UTFA Council June 15, 2011.

University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA)  Statement on Academic Librarianship in Canada

We, the members of the University of Toronto Faculty Association, whose purpose is to advance the interests of teachers, researchers and librarians in Canadian universities,[1] note with concern growing threats to academic librarianship at the University of Toronto and in Canada, as seen recently at McMaster University Library and Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa.

We believe that it is imperative to declare collectively our support for academic librarianship. A great university that strives to excel in all areas of knowledge needs the expertise of academic librarians to guide, direct and participate in all academic decision-making levels at the University of Toronto:

• Academic librarians provide a unique form of professional guidance and leadership in areas of expertise that only academic librarians can provide
• Academic librarians make ethical and informed decisions that secure the long-range continuity and growth of libraries
• Academic librarians offer invaluable teaching and research support to faculty and students in a rapidly changing environment

To this end, the University of Toronto Faculty Association urges its members to openly support academic librarianship and moves that:

• Academic librarians be recognized as full partners in the research and teaching goals at this institution and that meaningful decision-making roles for academic librarians be embedded into the structure of the institution and the libraries to ensure collegial participation and shared governance
• Academic librarians be recognized as critical to the success of the university’s academic goals and mission
• The positions of academic librarians, when vacated, be renewed by academic librarians
• Academic librarians have the right to share openly and express their opinions, ideas and concerns without fear of reprisal or recrimination by their supervisors and administrators
• Academic librarians have the right to make professional decisions autonomously in a collegial and transparent environment

[1] Article 2.1, UTFA Constitution.

B. MOTION BY UTFA EXECUTIVE AND CARRIED BY UTFA COUNCIL TO SUPPORT NEW POLICIES FOR U OF T LIBRARIANS

Carried January 2013.

The Executive recognizes the serious flaws in the Policies for Librarians and strongly supports the development of a new appointments and promotion policy for academic librarians at the University of Toronto.

C. UTFA APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE

Carried January 21, 2016.

Members of the Appointments Committee support the Librarians in seeking a new appointment and promotions policies that reflects the following:

• Transparent and collegial processes
• Peer review processes
• Modernized and unbiased policies