Collective bargaining negotiations for the legacy UMDNJ and RU unions are proceeding, and the focus will probably not shift to the Health Sciences librarians until negotiations for the larger group of faculty have progressed further. The status of vacated positions returned from the Health Sciences as a result of the integration is unclear.
Meetings with faculty and staff related to the next six months in preparation for the recruitment of the next VP for Information Services and University Librarian are planned for New Brunswick and Newark. Gaunt met with faculty and staff last week in Camden.
We have learned that Academic Analytics no longer has a relationship with Elsevier for the transfer of information to its database. This information is being replaced with information from CrossRef, and some institutions are wondering about the completeness and breadth of information this represents. The impact of the change, if any, is likely not to be noticed for some time.
Gaunt reviewed issues related to the confidentiality of the reappointment and promotion process now that a complete yearly cycle has been completed. She reminded Cabinet that the process is totally confidential. The review of all candidates is done based on the documentation, which is why the forms and packet must be completed properly. Each step in the process is a completely new review based on previous documentation. The peer group is expected to keep confidential all peer group discussions. Once their narrative has moved to the next level – Director or AUL – the review is again based on all the evidence. If the Dean or Director thinks they may vote differently based on the documentation and evidence of accomplishment, they are required to speak to one person only – the ad hoc chair of the peer group – to ask questions related only to their interpretation of documents as written in their narrative. They may not speak to anyone else, and must ask about specific areas of their concern based on the evidence. The same is true of the VP/UL. Where there is concern that the evidence does not speak to decision in the narrative, then the VP/UL speaks only to the Director about the interpretation. In both cases, if the Director/AUL or VP/UL plans to vote the same way as the previous review, there is no discussion. The candidate gets to see the packet (minus all confidential information such as letters of external evaluators) at the end of the process. Anyone involved in the process may not reveal any discussions that took place in committee during the appointment and/or promotion process. At the end of the reappointment process, the VP/UL meets with each candidate to review their packet and moving forward.
Fredenburg reviewed the University’s Protection of Minors Policy and the data she received from the AULs and Directors regarding programs they sponsor or participate in where there are minors. She has also spoken to members of the committee appointed to monitor the enforcement of the policy. As long as there is a chaperone and a librarian is not alone with the minors, we are exempt from the provision requiring certification. She has identified only one program where there is one-on-one, and the librarian involved has to meet the provisions. Cohn indicated that the Science Libraries have extensive summer programs, and they will compile a spreadsheet and share with Fredenburg. Glynn compiled the list of all the BI sessions, and there is always a chaperone present. Fredenburg will send an email out to rul_everyone with a reminder for everyone to continue to update the information quarterly. We have a policy addressing minors using the libraries unattended; this is not allowed; must be 18 or have an RU ID.
Our strategic plan has been sent to VP Edwards and appears on our staff pages. Boyle shared a PowerPoint on how we might want to determine assessment metrics for the plan. We need to be thinking about what level or multiple levels we want to use. The “Standards for Libraries in Higher Education” gives nine principles the libraries should strive for and their related performance indicators. Two forms of the model are an outcomes assessment-based model and an evidence-based model; Boyle prefers the outcomes assessment- based model. We mapped our plan to outcomes in standards. The outcome could show the university where we need more support; not tied so much to our performance. Need to demonstrate need.
How we will know how well we’re doing? We have used focus groups, interviews, surveys, Counting Opinions, SERU, branding, LibQUAL, MINES, interviewing, and an ethnographic study; we have a lot of experience and expertise. When benchmarking with peers, it’s also process metrics. Output measures show the number of things we’ve done and the percentages. The evidence we can collect has different layers of complexity. Budgetary and usage data is the easiest; customer self-reports; demonstrating what people do is the most difficult. For different types of metrics, we do have data.
Boyle shared the recent Ithaka faculty survey which can be offered locally and asked if we want to do it; will call on Cabinet members to help pull it together. Will begin to identify measures and modify; plot on a chart. Agnew will help with this. Cabinet agreed to continue the annual action plan; goal setting for the coming year should now be done based on our new plan.
Kuchi: Kuchi and Tom Glynn discussed areas that Planning & Coordinating Committee may be taking on this year; Triveni noted that at the June Planning & Coordinating Committee meeting, it was suggested that core competencies and responsibilities of librarians should be a topic for next year; Kuchi was thinking about approaching it in three parts: core values, core proficiencies, and professional standards of librarianship. As the information environment and users’ information seeking behavior changes, the expectations and core responsibilities of librarianship is also transforming. We may also approach these issues from the general to more specific functional changes.
Kuchi also announced that two Myanmar librarians will be training and touring RUL during the month of October. They will then travel to Northern Illinois University for ten days and return to Myanmar after that. Given that RUL is involved in global librarianship training/orientation/tours from time to time, Kuchi proposes to bring together some of these international/global exchanges into an ongoing academic librarian practitioner program or forum that would also tie into the Libraries Strategic Plan. More information is forthcoming.
Glynn: Melissa De Fino and Glynn met with our new Health Sciences colleagues in Newark and New Brunswick; will continue to have smaller informal meetings to get people together, especially as discussions on the status of these librarians continues.
Cohn: Closing ranks and working with Smulewitz and Weber on transfer of duties in technical areas. Gorman will be working with Agnew’s staff to talk about current processes in the health sciences so they will continue on after reorganization; will be reworking spaces as a result.
Fultz: Suggested August 26 as the date for the next Cabinet meeting; will poll the group for attendance. Consuella Askew, Director of Dana, will be joining the Libraries on August 25.
Agnew: The University of Chicago is expected to come live with OLE in July; the day after coming live, the software will be available for download. Lehigh is expected to come live sometime this summer as well.
Izbicki: Christine Lutz will be joining the Libraries on August 1, 2014 as the New Jersey Regional Services Librarian and Head of Public Services in Special Collections and University Archives. We have received a gift from the family of Robert Moevs (former Mason Gross faculty) to digitize his performance tapes.
Boyle: Orientations are under way at Newark in a variety of programs. The IJS had a proposal from RIMP, which is the index for music periodicals, to digitize jazz journals from the IJS collection.