Gaunt commented on the successful rotation of Gideon Thompson, Intern/Resident who just completed his rotation in administration. He will be giving his report on student positions and wages in the Libraries at this meeting. He also completed an excellent report on electronic records management recommending the need to better delineate our policy and practices related to electronic records management. Gaunt shared the report with Don Smith, OIT, who will be chairing a university committee on the topic, and who found Gideon's report very useful. Gideon also spent time with Jeanne and Janice. Gideon will be doing his residency year in Special Collections beginning July 1.
The Board of Governors, with the advice and consent of the Board of Trustees will be voting on the new president of the university on Wednesday morning at the Board meeting. The vote and introduction of the new president is expected to take place at 10:30. This is a public meeting and anyone can attend but seating is limited. The Administrative Council is invited to a reception following the Board meeting.
We have signed an agreement with Beth Mardutho, the Syriac Institute in Piscataway. Established in 1992, Beth Mardutho seeks to promote the study and preservation of the Syriac heritage and language, and to facilitate opportunities for people to pursue the study of this ancient legacy globally. The Institute aims to serve the academic community, and the heirs of the heritage - the Syriac Orthodox, Assyrians, Maronites, Chaldeans, Syriac Catholics, St. Thomas Christians, and the Antiocheans and Melkites, transcending denominational diversity. Its Academic Committee consists of the most prominent scholars in the field. The library itself has approximately 11,000 volumes, and our relationship will enhance our collection development and access to Middle Eastern Studies materials. We expect to embark on the digitizing of selective materials with donor support, and preserve the collection in RUcore. The staff of the library, which is small, will have primary borrowing privileges.
We have not yet had our NTT faculty processed approved; nor have other units. However, Associate VP Karen Stubaus has agreed to attend a faculty meeting and talk about the issues. We hope that the process will have been approved at the time we schedule the meeting, but it will be useful none the less.
The deans have had some discussions recently on the 10 year rule in the faculty promotion process to full professor, where the balance among scholarship, teaching, and service may be re-calibrated. One issue was whether an explanation should be included in the letters to outside evaluators who might not understand the criteria. Another discussion related to faculty not wanting to assume administrative duties, such as department chair, that might impede their progress and not count toward promotion. Deans felt that these duties should be counted, as they are critical to the success of departments, as chairs can actually shape the development of programs. There may be some broader discussion among the faculty of these topics.
Gaunt is completing the review of the year-end funding requests, and they should be sent to Directors and AULs by the end of the week or early next week. We are following up on some requests to ensure that all costs were included for certain equipment and installations. The requests for reclassifications will be finalized in early May.
As part of Gideon's internship with Libraries Administration, he was asked to review student employment within the libraries, specifically wage rates are and job descriptions which appear to be inconsistent and without an adequate rationale. As part of his charge he was asked to study how peer institutions handle their student employees. His report is posted on the Cabinet Sakai site. Gideon began by noting that Appendix C was produced by the Student Coordinator Group, which is a sub group of Access Services. It outlines the two types of student employees: work study and non-work study (previously called voucher). It is a good framework, but outdated and not all departments are represented by this document. Appendix A outlines the best model for a complete outline of federal work study job descriptions and pay rates, while Appendix B outlines the RUL student workers. In terms of drawing up something more official, Gideon recommended that an officially constituted group work on a scheme by means of an inclusive discussion. Gaunt had suggested at a previous meeting to create a system-wide task force of student employment, and not necessarily obstruct the current access services group. Boyle noted that when we talk about library assistants and graduate students, there doesn't seem to be an equitable description; should distinguish on the basis of work rather than status. Fredenburg noted that we refer to our graduate student employees as graduate assistants, which conflicts with a collectively bargained job title. In his report, Gideon recommended that we should expand the current student coordinator group, incorporate a timeline for review, align library funded student pay rates with FWSP rates, and incorporate pay ranges and fixed rates. In summarizing, Cabinet agrees that the FWSP pay scale should be the same as what we are doing for our own students; should try and maintain consistency. The level and job description should define the pay rate; not undergraduate or graduate status. Cabinet agreed to create a task force that is inclusive of the variety of the units that hire student workers; should take the findings Gideon has here and outline how we should move forward. The task force should make recommendations on grandfathering current student workers, and should be led by Libraries HR because it covers all units of the libraries who are hiring. The Task force should review all student workers to make sure that all categories of student workers on all three campuses are included. Gaunt thanked Gideon for his report and for his internship in Administration.
This discussion was a follow-up to the discussion on search committees and the interview process at the last Cabinet meeting. In clarifying roles and responsibilities, Cabinet directed Fredenburg to put together documents for discussion at this meeting. This document will serve as a guideline for the various groups and individuals that meet with the candidates. Also included is an evaluation form for the people who meet with the candidate. Gaunt noted that the language we use is important. This first document is something that the search committee chair would be sure everybody on the interview schedule receives a copy of prior to the interview day. Everybody who participates would complete an evaluation form. Cabinet decided that the evaluation forms should state that identity and other information will be kept confidential and shared only with the search committee, AUL or director. It should also be included in the candidate's information that we will be soliciting input.
Related to diversity, Gaunt and Lila reviewed the 2010 Diversity Task Force Report which recommended how we could increase the pool of candidates: the search committees should be diverse. In the screening criteria, there are the broad and comprehensive requirements; minimum requirements should not be inflated unnecessarily. Questions about The candidate's commitment to diversity should always be included. Gaunt thanked Lila for a good job. With the changes in language and the addition of feedback, this will go to all the search committees so they are aware of the process. They will also be shared with the faculty and included on a faculty meeting agenda.
Ryan reported on some of the many data management themed presentations at the Spring CNI meeting in Baltimore. Some highlights include the DataRes initiative being developed at the University of North Texas, who reported that 72% of the top 220 schools ranked by research intensity do NOT have defined research data policies. Only 30 institutions report that Libraries are helping with Data Management Plans. Other presentations outlined the future directions and findings of the Board on Research Data and Information and the National Science Board on Data Policy. The California Digital Library also reported on how they developed a cost model for research data services.
Puniello: Attended a Rutgers Swipe Card meeting; the university is changing its card swipe readers because confidential information is contained on the cards; cards also need to be connected to the Knight Express card. Gaunt had attended a preliminary meeting and noted that the major factor is that the cards contain the SSN. The Libraries installation is very simple-we need the cards solely to open doors. Other campus uses are more complicated, that is, the card serves a variety of purposes, so the software needs to be more sophisticated. We assume that at some future time we will need to transfer to a new system.
Boyle: At a prior Cabinet meeting, we discussed the learning assessment report; attended a meeting of the executive council on assessment chaired by Barry Qualls. We will be reviewing a model assessment plan provided by Brent Ruben. Following Cabinet's direction and with Melissa's support, met with librarians to discuss what kind of learning assessment report we should provide to VP Edwards, as requested of all units. Plan is to share with all library faculty.
Judy Cohn and Boyle attended a Symposium on National Security and Export Control Issues hosted by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the United States Department of Commerce, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.