Deans Council - Don Smith from IT spoke about VoIP conversion on the New Brunswick Campus; there is a website with the schedule. He was contacted by the library in Newark and was pleased to say there was interest elsewhere. Deans were concerned because many have already switched to something similar. Smith said in the end, it will be much less expensive for the university; the deans wonder how their budgets will be affected.
Smith mentioned the Google Apps for Education implementation for the students. University Counsel has worked with Google on a number of things related to privacy and security, and it's just as private as Rutgers email.
Dean Cooper discussed "The Practical Hands on Approach to Business" that is given to all students in the business school. 87% are placed three months after graduation; highest in country. Cooper has been pushing the combining of business with other academic programs; makes graduates more marketable - business and engineering, business and arts, business and management, etc.; would be great to have a minor or certificate in business. At the end of this academic year, Cooper is returning to the faculty; there is recruitment for a new dean for the program; Winston is on the search committee.
Gaunt attended a reception for the new business dean in Camden who said he will be the spark plug for the faculty in elevating the program in Camden.
Jim Hughes gave an overview on the employment figures for New Jersey related to the loss of jobs; we are still in the bottom five of any of the states. His prognosis is that jobs equal income, income equals tax revenue.
Executive VP Furmanski reported on the labor negotiations with the unions - 12 contracts need to be looked at; getting closer with some rather than others. Don't know how they plan to release the information.
We have a meeting scheduled with VP Pazanni's office related to data; hope to get something in place to announce to faculty before the January NSF deadline when all grants have to have a data preservation component; general discussion is whether there is boilerplate language we can make available to all faculty to put into grants if they don't have their own plan to preserve their data; if indeed we are using RUcore to preserve data, lets' start small and work through the details of what we can do ebeyond that. Technically we only need to have boilerplates to incorporate into grants.
Gaunt learned at the last University Senate meeting that the trustees learning groups are changing; apparently budget has been cut back drastically this year, and Fehrenbach only has money for four, and those will be what the President focuses on. The four groups are Advocacy, Buildings and Grounds, Campus and Leadership and Diversity. This might be a great opportunity to showcase the diversity research center.
Gaunt sent an email to Cabinet following the last Planning and Coordinating Committee meeting on the follow-up of the target of opportunity and new faculty hire. There was a concensus that if we really want serious input, one month was a short timeline to come up with the information on recommendations that Cabinet could digest. Need to have recommendations to Cabinet by January 1, and will put it on the agenda for the first meeting in 2011.
Tipton reviewed with Cabinet the last report from the organizational review; Gaunt noted their report is terrific. Tipton reported that the group was given six processes to look at; decided not to analyze media bookings; deserve their own task force. Looked for cost savings; did not find many. Emphasis is on article delivery and e-reserves; but other areas might benefit from their findings. As a general guideline, if we are looking at a process and we see that the purchase of some equipment would save people time, it's a good investment. The total cost of these services would include salaries plus benefits, subscription or upkeep costs for the different systems accessed, office equipment and supplies, and overhead. The keys to saving money in this environment are having adequate student or part-time help to perform the less-skilled portions of the job, having adequate equipment, and searching for better software solutions to the issues of record creation and data transfer between incompatible systems. What can we do to make it easier for users to find what we have; we spend a lot of money on cataloging, and then we hide it. The things that are important from a user's perspective have to rise to the top of our work. The major purpose of this was cost savings or cost efficiencies. We are doing these services; can we make them more efficient; idientified things we can do, as far as student workers, equipment, interface.
Niessen mentioned work study students; there has been a tremendous benefit in Alexander Library where we have work students; is that a temporary bubble and should we worry when we don't have as many work study students. That's where we have to cut back on something; if this is a priority, cuts will come in other areas. Fetzer noted that in order to employ those students well, we need staff to supervise them.
Gardner will gather data on scanning equipment across the three libraries, and is looking at the programmatic issues; the group did not do anything related to media and media bookings; will set up something or focus an existing group on it.
Gaunt thanked Tipton and the team; their report gave us a lot to take back and promote change; identified issue of reserve that needs to be looked at; our role; the other is the media issue, which we will have to think about what we want to do. Will review all the recommendations in the report; everything is actionable; will get back to Cabinet for a sign-off.
Cabinet discussed questions about the organizational review process if we do it in the future. After having looked at our three top areas, Boyle agreed to resurrect the list and what our users are saying in Counting Opinions on what needs to be addressed. Winston noted that we would want to take into account the breadth of the areas we select; the timeframe and the relationship between the organizational review steering committee and the review teams; it's a demanding process and the coordination is challenging; one recommendation was that the members of the steering committee also be a part of review teams; it's a major time commitment for whomever operates in those roles. Having Councils and existing committees are helpful starting points in configuring the review process; one of the challenges is the objectivity we hoped to build in, especially where the goal is to look critically and realize savings.
Gaunt will do a charge for media, review the topics, and discuss at the next Cabinet meeting.
Boyle reviewed with Cabinet the ARL-CNI Forum that she attended on October 14-15 in Washington, DC. There were 208 attendees at this part of the fall meeting. David Shulenberger, VP for Academic Affairs, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, gave a presentation on "The Future of Research Libraries." As an economist, he said that research universities thrive on a synergy of research, graduate and undergraduate education; state subsidies are dropping, and endowment levels have fallen at both public and non-public universities. Forces weakening the synergy are growing stronger. To make up the loss, we need to increase tuition, acquire national rather than state funding, and work together. Implications for the libraries are reductions, the need to demonstrate value, and the need to make research visible.
Joan Gallos reported on "Library Leadership and the Courage to Change: What Got You Here Won't Get You There." Leading libraries into the future requires courage, good strategies, and openness to bold possibilities. Leadership is best when you pay attention to the human side. Boyle distributed Gallos' skills continuum to Cabinet, which was the point of her report. Healthy leadership demands the head and the heart; need to go through self reflection.
Boyle attended "Introducing the ARL 2030 Scenarios: A User's Guide for Research Libraries." The speaker was Susan Stickley, President, Stratus, Inc., and Consultant for ARL on Envisioning Research Library Futures: A Scenario Thinking Project.
Boyle attended "Models for Organizational Realignment"; David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration spoke. NARA is to be invited to join ARL as the 126th member.
Summing up the conference, Larry Alford said change comes best when we listen to faculty and students; work done before was not wasted. Cliff Lynch said there is a lot to focus on and balance at that interface.
Will put Boyle on a future Cabinet agenda for the assessment conference she attended.
Gaunt reviewed with Cabinet the "Budgeting Framework for the Rutgers University Libraries" and the handouts distributed in advance of the meeting on "Library Tech Fees", "Library Income from Research Grants," "Libraries Base Budget Compared to Rutgers Student Tuition and Fees Revenue and NJ State Appropriations" and the cost of databases over the years. Unlike the teaching faculty or academic departments that have gone to the all funds approach and know where their money is coming from, it's difficult for us to know. We are a non-generating unit so that we can't plan to increase our funding by offering more courses or doing summer or winter session. Premsise is to have transparent and predictable budget. Case made for how we can do that is really based on a percentage or variety of things that come in from the university - percentage of tuition, technology fee that goes up every year, and ICR. We would like to get some recognition that our collections are seen as fixed costs at the university like electricity and all the other costs the university pays. Those are the things we have essentially wrapped into the package for what we are asking them to consider. Then we are trying to examine what we want to give in showing what our peer institutions are doing. We do say in the repot that there is no norm for anything for libraries across ARL. What we are asking for is not unique to others; examples are found in ARL institutions, but they vary from institution to institution. The last piece is looking at the list of journals; if they go up and we don't get increases, something else has to go. This is jnust the tip of the iceberg. Not a single book. Our base budget compared to how tuition and fees goe up but our budget hasn't gone up at the level the university's budget has gone up. We are getting a smaller portion of the university's budget; want to make a case to get a higher personctage. If budget tied to these figures, our budget would go up. We are the only across the university unit so it would make it easy for Furmanski to think we are essential. Gaunt noted that it would be good to run the numbers again on the percentage of tuition and see where we stand; the tuition could be adjusted if we discover what percentage we got to insure we get more. Niessen suggested that maybe the key should be on enrollment rather than tuition. Will continue to tweak this a little bit, run some numbers and talk with Executive VP Furmanski about whether we can move to a new model that will be a little more transparent.
Boyle: Today was the deadline for comments about those at your units' reporting statistics; heard from two people; Boyle will contact those not heard from so we can get the statistics done.
Boyle and Fredenburg have received feedback from 37 committees; the survey is closed. Fetzer just sent a list of two recently set up committees. Continue to tweak the form shared at last Cabinet meeting looking at staffing compared to students and faculty. Planning and Coordinating Committee is looking at data on how we compare to peer institutions related to staffing.