Diversity Committee Meeting – June 15, 2006
Present at meeting: Agnew, Braquet, Bright, Drain, Flynn, Gray, Mack, Manoff, Roller, Royse, R. Smith, T. Smith, Watson, and Weaver
Announcements
1. Culture Corner
Kawanna announced that the new Culture Corner featuring the Caribbean is now in place. Kawanna noted the posters done by Martha Rudolph and encouraged everyone to visit the corner. She then announced that Maud Mundava, though rotating off of the committee, has volunteered to serve as coordinator of the Culture beginning in the fall semester
2. Judges and Moderators Needed – 12th Annual SAEOPP/UTK McNair National Scholars Research Conference
Kawanna shared information on the call for judges and moderators sent out by Dean Dewey. The judges/moderators are needed for the 12th annual McNair National Scholars Research Conference scheduled for July 6-9 at the Hilton. Those interested would be helping on Friday July 7 and Saturday July 8. If interested in serving as a judge please contact Yvette McDaniel (865) 974-7900, mcdaniyt@utk.edu or as a moderator, please contact Dr. Ronald McFadden at (865) 974-7900, mcfadden@utk.edu by Monday June 26, 2006
Diversity/Sensitivity Training Sub-Group
Kawanna gave a recap of the discussion held at the May 18th meeting on proposed diversity training plan (please see the minutes from that meeting). It was then asked if this were to be addressed with LMG, what it should include. Rita suggested that it be in the form of an action plan rather than a report, that included an overview, a rationale, recommendations, and a plan for action.
Molly suggested that the purpose of our committee attending a training first would be to serve as a hands-on way of setting up a rationale. We could see first-hand what type of training we would be able to suggest. Discussion of whether people would be opposed to the training came up and Becky likened it to the courtesy/benefits training that staff previously had to attend. The group attending first and then telling others about it might serve as a way of intriguing people about the training and hopefully help to avoid resistance.
Tom noted that he could not see a way of getting away from the resistance and that our group going through training would not help. He feels that the problem is the lack of effective communication with the larger staff. We need to be positive and show that the training is not something new. This is where the campus is heading – the library is usually ahead of the curve in matters of diversity but in terms of diversity training we are not, especially in light of the Ready for the World initiative. Cheryl mentioned that we might be able to use the HR 128 initiative that encourages employees to complete 32 hrs of training as an incentive for attending training.
Roger noted that there are certain basic skills needed to do a job and that we should be able to say that recognizing diversity is part of doing a job. This won’t eliminate resistance but it is part of the big picture. Cheryl mentioned that in her departments last team meeting they mentioned that they could include diversity training as part of their departmental retreat. Tom suggested that this could be used as a positive example of a team engaged in the process of training that we could share with other departments as an option.
Donna then asked if we should approach LMG or if we should go directly to the Dean. Rita suggested that we go directly to the Dean as she generally sets the agenda for LMG and since we as a committee tend to approach her directly. And if it goes to LMG it should come from the Dean. It would make sure that Barbara is also aware of things. Maribeth suggested that we could also get her reaction first or her suggested revisions. It is important to have her support
Tom then asked what the end goal of the process was. He asked if the sub-group would be more adhoc than a subgroup. He is willing to convene but wanted to know the length of time that we would be looking at. The committee agreed that the end product would be to get an action plan to Barbara. Roger suggested that it would be beneficial if the “subgroup” invited OED in to help with the plan. Molly agreed and compared this to the proposed training for the committee that would serve more evaluative purposes. Cheryl also offered to prepare copies of the training materials from the training she went through. Tom suggested we start with general training and see if we could tweak it as we went along. Molly noted that we should make sure it meets our needs as an organization.
Gail asked about the timing of the training – will it be a long-range process? It was confirmed that training could be offered on an as needed basis. Roger also noted that he has contacted OED about serving as a trainer. Donna noted that our first plan doesn’t have to be perfect and that it should be an on-going process. We should get the ball rolling instead of worrying about a needs assessment. Molly agreed that no formal needs assessment was needed, just concrete stuff for the Dean and LMG. Roger noted that there was also potential for orientation of new employees and needs will change as our organization changes.
It was suggested that committee members note what we see as the needs of the library in terms of training and send that to Tom for the subgroup to use.
Rita then asked if we wanted the training to me mandatory, because if yes, then that would be the only reason to take it to LMG. If the training were not mandatory then we could implement it ourselves without having to gain outright approval from LMG. Instead we should look at approaching LMG for their advice rather than their permission. Cheryl pointed out that the training was required for supervisors in a program to attend this type of training, this is why she suggested that the supervisors attend first and then take the idea back to their employees. Rita asked how we would enforce it if we did try to make it mandatory and how do we best pull in team leaders to help? What is the ultimate goal?
Tom suggested that instead of using the term mandatory that we should word it as moving in a direction of everyone participating in diversity training. We could ask LMG how to get good buy in and participation. Is the team model a good way or will this work on small groups? Roger pointed out that the training has been happening on a mandatory basis in other areas on campus. Rita suggested that we could take the question to LMG such as “is this something we want to do as a library?” or “will the team leaders support it”. LaVerne also suggested that we ask Barbara if she will also support it. Rita asked if it would also be a bigger part of the evaluation process. If this is the case then approaching LMG is necessary and the process will be different. Roger notes that this is a bigger training issue. We should come up with something now and then continue working on it for the future. Linda suggested that we approach the tam leaders to strongly encourage the training, then have training be available whenever they may request it. We could then work up to it being mandatory.
Rita also brought up the other side of the issue – what if the training doesn’t change or improve behavior. There has to be a follow-up as an outcome. Something we do as a whole to evaluate inappropriate behavior and deal with it. Becky mentioned that another approach is to teach the willing, change their behavior and see if their behavior change can influence others. Gail suggested that those who received training could then feel comfortable enough to respond when faced with situations like the one that Tom shared with the committee – to respond in an appropriate way.
Tom suggested the following next steps as the discussion wrapped up:
1. Do what we can now on our own to try to set up general sessions.
2. Follow up with the other teams.
3. Have a working group (a fluid group) to take up the larger issue of buy-in – a taskforce.
Roger, Kawanna, Cheryl and Becky all volunteered to work on the taskforce. Rita suggested we go ahead and start the training and Maribeth suggested that we make sure that it really suits the library so that if we only catch some people once during the process, that it is meaningful to them. Other suggestions include integrating it into orientation and placing importance on it fro the organization and that there might be less resistance at that stage.
Membership Discussion
Membership discussion began with Kawanna letting everyone know that it is time to make a call for new members since many will be rotating off of the committee at the end of this term. She asked everyone to read the current membership guidelines and make suggestions. Donna inquired about the separate layers of leadership. What was the status of the outreach and staff development conveners. Should we include information on this in the guidelines?
Molly mentioned that the subgroup model evolved late as the committee evolved. The question is should it now be formalized. Rita suggested that this was similar to by-laws and that this might not be a direction that we were ready to go. Linda & Molly mentioned that we don’t really need to mention subgroups in the guidelines but it was suggested that an organizational description (formal) be done. Donna asked that it include the responsibilities of the leadership, the conveners and the chairs. Kawanna agreed to write up something related to the responsibilities as they are now and to send this to the current conveners (Donna and Becky) for additional updates and tweaks. This could then be brought to the committee and then shared on the committee’s website.
Becky then suggested the options of having Diversity Committee meetings be open meetings. It was suggested as well that minutes should be posted on sharenews to get it out to more people. We could also post our agenda online. This would allow others to participate and also allow former members to stay involved. We could also designate certain meetings as open and others as closed in cases where confidential topics were being discussed. Molly suggested that the goal setting meeting would be a good open meeting. This would also allow us to keep the history of the committee alive.
Meeting was adjouned
Respectfully submitted on June 15, 2006 by Kawanna Bright