Minutes of Coordinating Committee Meeting for the Apr. 19, 2000 meeting

Present:

Au, Consoli, Dess, R.Gardner, Gaunt, Haynes, Langschied, Li, Olin, P.Page, Weber, Wilson, Womack

Absent:

Beede

Decisions

• The revised Guidelines for Activities and Documentation with Respect to the Reappointment and Promotion of Library Faculty were approved and will be brought forward to the June RUL faculty meeting for discussion. Copies will be distributed to all faculty with the agenda two weeks prior to the meeting.
• The special committee (Olin, R.Gardner, Weber) reviewing issues related to faculty line use will summarize recommendations for recruitment that can be implemented now and will forward these to University Librarian and Faculty Coordinator. After review by Coordinating Committee, Gaunt will take to Cabinet for discussion. Final recommendations will be forwarded to RUL Human Resources Dept. for implementation.

1. The minutes of the 3/22 meeting were approved, with the following clarifications:
   • Congratulations should go to the full committee for the success of the spring RUL faculty meeting.
   • Timetable for issuing call for agenda items for Coordinating Committee meetings has been amended. The Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator meet with the University Librarian three weeks prior to the Coordinating Committee meeting; the call for agenda items will be issued one week prior to the meeting with the UL (i.e., approximately one week after the previous committee meeting).
   • Gaunt is in the process of contacting D.Luck and H.Rusak about their participation in the June faculty meeting (sharing their recollections from years at RUL).
2. Old business
   1. Guidelines for Activities and Documentation with Respect to the Reappointment and Promotion of Library Faculty (R.Gardner)
      R.Gardner distributed draft that included revisions from previous committee discussion. This version was discussed at Cabinet, and Gaunt reported on suggestions that were made. Committee felt that these suggestions were already covered in the text of the document. The draft was approved and will be placed on the agenda of the June RUL faculty meeting.
   2. Faculty line use–interim report (Olin, Weber, R.Gardner)
      The special committee to review faculty line use has been meeting weekly since they received their charge. They have identified three areas of focus: recruitment, retention, and future needs. Olin explained that they have been in a fact-finding phase thus far, gathering information on the national picture via literature searches, websites, contacts with library educators, and examining job postings from the Chronicle and other sources. A suggestion was made that we look at comparable institutions that have gone through similar experiences (e.g., engaging in digital initiatives and assessing staff needs); UCLA, Iowa and Penn State were suggested. At the local level, the committee has been brainstorming over questions that should be explored with the Human Resources Office regarding faculty postings, Librarian Vs, and tenure issues. We need to look at alternative ways of advertising our openings, such as websites and listservs.
      
      Weber reviewed issues related to recruitment. Since many schools have now gone to a two-track system granting M.L.S. and also M.I.S. and I.T. degrees, the pool of M.L.S. candidates has gotten smaller. It is difficult to compete with many higher-paying information technology jobs. We need to be more comprehensive in our advertising to reach a wider pool. Other issues to consider in recruiting are more flexible travel arrangements (don't require a Saturday stayover), the possibility of promoting qualified Librarian Vs, and including non-U.S. citizens in the candidate pools. Weber noted that currently there are nine open positions in RUL; since 1993 there have been twelve Librarian Vs in New Brunswick, two at Dana, and two at TAS. With the graying of the faculty, we will also be losing many RUL members in the next few years.
      
      Gardner led discussion of retention and future needs. She noted that the Planning Committee has done exit interviews with ten former RUL faculty, and they will be analyzing the responses. Flexibility seems to be very important, including the possibility of converting some faculty lines to high-level staff positions to meet our needs. How do we retain candidates? We need to shorten our hiring process. Our procedures for posting need to be streamlined, and we should identify library schools to target. There was a question about posting more entry-level positions, but apparently some qualified people are deterred when they see the minimum salary. Gaunt will check to see if we have to include a salary figure in the posting. Consoli noted that being on a search committee is a time-consuming experience that becomes very frustrating when we lose candidates before the end. Langschied wondered if our procedure is too onerous? Do we involve too many people and activities?
      
      There was further discussion regarding the promotion of Librarian Vs into tenure-track positions; the mechanism for doing this does exist as part of their annual reappointment process. Wilson noted that some Librarian Vs are SCILS graduates whose experiences are limited to the Rutgers system. Perhaps we should consider the practice of most teaching departments where their own graduates are seldom hired immediately on tenure track lines.
      
      Gaunt suggested that RUL members should do some informal recruiting when they attend professional events. If we encounter persons we would like to have at RU, we shouldn't hesitate to put out feelers about their willingness to move or possible interest in Rutgers. Even if there are no positions open at the time, it is often better to have particular candidates in mind when something appropriate does open up than to recruit a pool that may not be as qualified.
      
      The special committee did examine the list of the most recent openings to see where they were posted; there were no websites and very few listservs included. We need to take more advantage of such resources to reach a broader pool. The special committee has identified a number of such resources and will pass these along to the Human Resources Dept. It would also be helpful if HR could keep a database of candidates (with credentials and areas of expertise) which could be checked when we have openings. Wilson requested that the special committee prepare a "mini report" with recommendations that can be implemented now. The report should be submitted to the University Librarian and Faculty Coordinator for discussion by the full Coordinating Committee and also by Cabinet. Final recommendations would be forwarded to HR Dept. for implementation.
3. There was no new business.
4. Committee reports
   1. A & P (Weber): Interviewing candidates for open positions in World History/Jewish Studies, Instruction and Information Services, and Anglo-American History/Political Science.
   2. Collection Development Council (Consoli): Minutes have been posted on the web. Attention focused on shifting funds for next fiscal year with emphasis on how to fund e- resources.
      
      Forum was held recently on development of core journal collections; it was well attended and generated lots of good discussion. The terminology for "core collection" may be ill-defined. Gaunt noted that when Cabinet recently discussed budget strategies for the five-year plan, they used the term "strategic priorities." They discussed the need to develop a priority list for e-serials for next year.
      
      RUL is moving in the direction of allowing a digital copy of dissertations to serve as our archival copy.
   3. NB Faculty Council (Consoli): A committee is being appointed to inspect university buildings for fire extinguishers.
      
      Consoli will be on the Library Committee and will bring the issue of priority lists for e- resources to the next meeting.
      
      The University's harassment policy is under fire again. Two people have been hired to implement the policy, but some faculty have raised objections to statements that they feel take away due process, and they want the document to go back to the Senate.
   4. Planning Committee (Olin): The Planning Committee is mounting a website on scholarly communications and reintroducing their listserv as a follow-up to last spring's forums on national trends in digital publishing and their implications for Rutgers. They will send out letters to all faculty to announce these developments.
   5. Research Leave Review Committee (Haynes): Reviewed four SRA applications.
   6. Newark Campus (Au): IJS received NEH preservation grant for Mary Lou Williams Collection; they have been invited to submit for a larger amount than originally requested.
   
   
   Bell Atlantic and Lucent Technology have given money to support a program this summer for high school teachers to learn about various digital technologies.
5. University Librarian's report (Gaunt):
   Meeting has been scheduled with Librarian Is to discuss role of mentoring faculty for promotion and how to nominate faculty for promotion to Librarian I.
   
   VP Seneca will appoint a committee probably late summer to review the University's copyright policy. Gaunt has edited videotapes of the March 23 copyright symposium and will put these on reserve at main libraries. Several follow-up lunches have been scheduled on copyright issues. First session on fair use had 15 attendees. Next session on scholarly communication and copyright being held at LSM today (4/19).
   
   The Pane Memorial (for Ray and Josephine Pane) will be held 4/27 in the Pane Room.
   
   CRL is in the process of trying to turn their finances around and will be on a tight budget for next five years. They are trying to hire a new director (salary probably around $150,000), who will need to assess what CRL is all about and where it fits into the digital era.
   
   Cabinet has been discussing budget strategies for next year. Gaunt will be meeting with VP Seneca in May and will need to decide how best to package what we are requesting on a priority basis (including staffing). The Councils will each be discussing their priorities for next year. There are really two pools of money that we're requesting–regular operating funds and new money. New money requests should be tied to our strategic plan and the digital library initiative. The operating money should remain the same as last year, but we probably won't know about new money until the fall when the President makes his announcement. Wilson noted the need to get funding for recon, which is a top priority on all the Council lists. How can we help sell this to Seneca? Gaunt suggested that we need to demonstrate the impact this would have on the University–for example, we've already made an investment in these collections, but users don't know we have them. A change in language might be helpful–instead of "recon" perhaps we should try "digitizing the catalog." We will need about $800,000 total for all recon.
   
   Veronica Calderhead has been promoted to Librarian II with tenure. Mary Fetzer has been promoted to Librarian I.

Meeting adjourned 11:35 a.m. Next meeting 5/17.

Respectfully submitted,
Penny Page, Secretary