As part of the organizational review in October 2009, the grants process was analyzed; Fredenburg, Hendrickson and McDonnell will update Cabinet and determine if we can move forward.
The draft "Grants Procedure Outline" and draft "Grant Pre-Application Process" documents were placed on the Sakai site for Cabinet review. The group followed the principle of keeping it as simple as possible; found a number of models from other universities to draw from. The "Grants Procedure Outline," which is very basic, has eight steps to follow. Today we are looking for comments, thoughts, changes, and ultimately your approval. McDonnell is working on the grants website; this is where these documents will reside.
Agnew noted that ORSP has its own deadlines, which are a week or two in advance of the granting deadlines, and this needs to be taken into consideration. ORSP should be added to the procedure outline, and the timeframes should be adjusted. ORSP should also be contacted during the process since they can offer very good guidance in advance. The pre-application document should also have a place to document how much time the grant will take of the individual's day; how many faculty/staff would be engaged; and what percentage of time they will be engaged.
As noted in the Grants Procedure Outline, the Director of Development will coordinate the draft proposal process. Once she receives the proposal and determines who's involved, she'll confer with all the people, Hendrickson will review the budget, and then it will be sent for the VP/UL's approval.
Fredenburg noted that as part of cabinet's strategic action plan, we devote a time to look at areas where we'd like to grow and impact our profession where additional money would help. We could post the calendar on an internal website for the major granting agencies so there is recognition of a schedule for when we need to go for it. Others may have similar ideas to merge with. Right now everybody is operating individually and we don't know that somebody else has same or similar idea. As part of our plan, will do some training; Hendrickson will be in touch with someone from Grant Accounting; people need to be aware of their responsibilities if they are awarded money; there is a great deal of record-keeping tied to grants; the University is tightening up on whether grant procedures are being followed. Agnew suggested a grant mentoring program.
Fredenburg will do another iteration of the grant documents and send it by email for final approval.
McDonnell distributed to Cabinet the campaign brochure we had printed from the Foundation; copies were mailed to Golden and Winston.
The Chancellor of the Camden campus has confirmed that a satellite branch of the Camden County Library serving the city of Camden will be created on the lower floor of the Robeson Library. The library will have its own entrance that faces Fifth Street. The space will also house the campus' Rutgers Future Scholars program and the Campus Access Center, which are complementary. In order to create the space necessary, Robeson will weed the current collection on that floor, send some collections to Annex and shelve the remaining on compact shelving. Any seating lost will be regained by a complete remodeling the second floor. The children's library will also support the new campus program in early childhood studies, as well as social studies, psychology, and teacher preparation. There will be a formal announcement next week.
We have received a report from the Treasurer's office related to the need for space for the university's records management program and possible options to address that need. Gaunt will be working with the Treasurer's office to determine the most effective course of action.
Working with the office of the Vice President for Research regarding library support for scientific data management plans, access, and preservation, the Libraries will be receiving a staff position to assist in managing that program beginning July 1. This will help us move forward in our efforts to assist faculty in the development of data management plans pursuant to the NSF mandate, and to preserve data in RUcore.
The annual ARL meeting was held last week and a number of programs related to RUL interests. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Canadian Research Libraries annual meeting and focused on transcending national borders. There were sessions on scientific data management, especially a focus in Canada on a national effort across all the research libraries and with the major national science agencies. An outline of presentations made by library directors to their faculty was shared.
Deanna Marcum of the Library of Congress spoke about their major effort to transform our bibliographic framework for the 21st century. LC intends to have a major consultative process to review the use of MARC 21, FRBR, and RDA and its value to Libraries at a time when the digital environment is changing rapidly, and where budgets are diminishing.
We will be receiving a report from an ARL task force that reported on international interlibrary loan and document delivery practices. The major thrust of the report is that current copyright law affecting ILL appears to allow such transactions under fair use, and that our licensing agreements should contain language specifying that nothing therein restricts exceptions permitted under copyright law. Orphan work legislation was also discussed and it was agreed that the time is not right for legislation on orphan works. It would take considerable attention to bring this to Congress, and it is not a priority on our campuses and for our legislative liaisons that would have to do a lot or work with congressional delegations. A thrust of conversations is that fair use in copyright is about risk analysis, and Libraries should be more proactive but responsible in using their fair use rights.
A session Gaunt attended addressed the several new collaborative remote storage facility agreements established by WEST, the CIC, and ASERL. All three are starting (and ma limit themselves) to print journals, and later monographs. All are doing some combination of a central site and adding others. Major issues for each are budget planning to share the costs, decisions on collection use, level of validation of the completeness of content, length of the agreement and conditions for withdrawal (most are keeping materials for at least 25 years), ownership of content contributed to a central storage, and how to make records of content available.
A financial analyst who deals in intellectual property presented data that he had gathered related to the "big deal" for database licensing. The data showed that publishers are not consistent in applying their own internal formula for how pricing is used across libraries, nor in specifying that there is a "list" price from which they negotiate. Data gathered by ARL about licensing contracts demonstrated that not all libraries got the same deal - some negotiated better agreements than others, and that now is the time for Libraries negotiating licenses to stand firm, however, Libraries need to determine up front at what point they are willing to walk away.
ARL is in the process of reviewing its statistics and how the annual statistical surveys can be revised to reflect data libraries now need and use. All ARL directors were contacted and asked for input. We should be seeing changes in the near future and in time for the next data count.
Boyle distributed handouts, which reflects what was posted on the Sakai site this morning. SERU is a survey of choice that Rutgers is using with undergraduate students. The survey developed in the University of California system; have expanded it into a SERU consortium. Rutgers administers the survey in the spring semester. In the printout, there are a couple of questions that relate to the libraries - accessibility of library staff, availability of research material, and library research skills. The data that has been gathered has been available by school and departments at Rutgers. We are compared with five other universities; do not know who they are; do have a clue of how they are selected; they look at % of in-state and out of state budget, publics or not; when looking at how we compare with other universities, it looks like we have some work to do. Might be worthwhile to ask Susan Lawrence to come and discuss the presentation she recently gave on the SAS core curriculum at a recent Academic Council Meeting. Do go to the site; you can do more studies with SERU. Gaunt asked Cabinet to review the questions that Boyle gave us, take a look at the survey and see if there are others we might want to see related to library space, critical thinking, etc.
Gardner noted that as RUL's Web Board begins its work, members have started discussing some of the recommendations set forth in the "Final Report of the Ethnographic Research Project." These guiding principles will be used in the redesign process. One of the priorities that emanated from the project was the need to "simplify/change labels" and to "minimize library jargon." Members of the Web Board feel that a place to start is to consider changing the name of "IRIS" to "Catalog." The use of the acronym "IRIS" could be de-emphasized over time. Use of the word "catalog" (or something similar) has also been observed as a trend in peer institutions' libraries. Having gone to the User Services Council and the Library Resources Council with overwhelming support, Cabinet is being asked to discuss and officially sign off. Cabinet agreed that this is a good idea. The name needs to be as generic as possible. Therefore, effective July 1, 2011, RUL's online catalog will be officially named the Library Catalog and not IRIS. Study revealed that the new name will provide better clarity for our all important users. Please note the name change for any items or transactions where the catalog is currently referred to as IRIS. Cabinet members will make the announcement internally to their units. Fredenburg will notify Administration. We will start planning in order to roll it out.
At the last Cabinet meeting, we discussed the idea of providing professional development opportunities to library faculty related to leadership programs out there; discussed developing a charge to the Planning and Coordinating Committee on leadership programs. Gaunt provided a draft charge as follows: to inventory leadership programs which show particular relevance to academic library professionals; to recommend to Cabinet those programs having particular merit and applicability; to develop and submit to the University Librarian a process for selection of librarians to attend those leadership programs selected, and to provide this information by September 1. Will set aside some money for professional development; put on a future Cabinet agenda.
Fredenburg: The Lyrasis webinar on "Library as Place" will be held in the University Librarian's Conference Room at 2 p.m. today, with videoconferencing to Newark and Camden.
We are planning a workplace violence policy training program. This is a University initiative; the libraries have been selected as the pilot; date will be announced. Please encourage your staff to attend; videoconferencing to Newark and Camden will be provided.
Marilyn Wilt will be contacting each of the Directors and AULs to talk to you about learning plans for your staff; exactly what are your expectations, what do you need, what are your plans; will post the message for all of you in Sakai. This is getting a sense collectively of the kinds of things we should offer or bring in from the outside in terms of what will be important for your staff; i.e., when you do your P4Ps, providing opportunities for training.
Izbicki: We are in the process of implementing our big ticket expenditures; Hendrickson, Smulewitz and Izbicki touch base regularly; this is part of the effort to reinvest where possible; we have seen three vendors for the Patron -Driven Acquisitions pilot project; will have to decide how to relate to monographic acquisitions; training is in development for selectors of fund management; will go to Camden and Newark; want people to participate as fully as possible.
Fetzer: The User Service's Council has received the report of the Chat Reference Services Task Force. The report and recommendations will be discussed at the April 26 USC meeting, with the intent of moving swiftly to endorse and implement the recommendations for RUL's chat reference service, or to modify those recommendations as appropriate.
Sara Harrington's last day is June 30; will have something for her around the middle of the month; discussing plans for the position with Gaunt.
Boyle: There is a meeting tomorrow from 2:30-3 about the results from the focus groups for staff.
Puniello: Kickoff meeting for the Scarlet Late Cafe is tomorrow afternoon. The plaza will be done sometime this summer. The walkway between Alexander Library and SCI will be closed while SCI is getting a new roof.
Gaunt: The University's Commencement will be held Sunday, May 15 at 10 a.m.
Following the April 27 Libraries Faculty Business Meeting, an Open Forum was held, entitled, "A Look at E-Books: Challenges and Opportunities for Users and the Libraries." The panel was moderated by J. Niessen. We should be doing more of these programs.