Meeting called to order at 9:37 a.m.
1. Minutes of 5/16/01 meeting approved.
2. Welcome and Review of Chair/Campus Representative Responsibilities:
M. Wilson welcomed the new members of the Coordinating Committee. She strongly encouraged newly elected chairs to read Section VII of the Bylaws in order to review the charges to the respective committees, and committee responsibilities. The "coordinating" function of the Coordinating Committee was emphasized through the creation of the agenda, the dissemination of the minutes, and the work of the committee chairs. The need for communication was thus underlined.
Chairs were encouraged to communicate and coordinate their work with the Personnel Officer, S. Troy, as needed, as the Personnel Office provides support for faculty affairs. Emails about coordinating committee work are to be sent to M. Wilson at email@example.com and copied to M. Gaunt at firstname.lastname@example.org. J. Fultz should be notified if one is unable to attend a meeting at email@example.com or 932-7505.
Ms. Wilson also noted that the changes in the Bylaws approved at the previous RUL faculty meeting need to be finalized by the Rules of Procedure Committee in order to have an updated, official copy of the Bylaws. Additionally, the Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee needs to officially communicate the revisions in the recruitment process to the Personnel Office. The new committee chairs, in alphabetical order by last name of chairperson, are:
M. Fetzer inquired as to the general practice is in terms of reporting back to faculties. M. Wilson replied that this is dependent on the urgency of the issue: some warrant immediate report, others can wait for the distribution of the minutes.
3. Continuing Business:
a. Inventory of Previous Committee Work:
b. Map of Faculty Responsibilities:
T. Haynes raised the issue of the recently distributed map of faculty responsibilities. Individuals have expressed concern because titles do not seem to reflect current responsibilities. M. Gaunt noted that these documents would be revised in two distinct ways: either cabinet will update it for a unit, or individuals may send updates to library directors. The purpose of these documents is for planning, as they allow us to see what faculty we have, their abilities/expertise, and what skills we may need in the next 3-10 years. M. Gaunt noted, however, that changes in titles must follow a particular procedure. A. Tallau noted that these documents should include not merely one=s current responsibilities, but background knowledge and special skills. M. Wilson added that this mapping is an ongoing project that will be returned to CC for fuller discussion.
4. New Business:
a. Committee Action Plans
According to Bylaw Section VII Number 12 chairs must develop a Committee Action Plan by 10/1. Chairs should bring a summary of this plan to the next CC meeting.
b. RUL Faculty Meeting Topics
The next RUL faculty meeting is scheduled for 11/16/01. CC reviews agenda items for the RUL faculty meeting. It was suggested that a timely discussion topic be considered for the faculty meetings. Business could be conducted during the first hour and a half, followed by a 45-minute guest lecture and Q&A session. M. Gaunt proposed that scholarly communication is topic of great current interest, as recent ARL activities indicate.
M. Gaunt noted that the Scholarly Communications Committee is planning a spring symposium treating the same issue, to facilitate discussion among faculty about what role RU might have as a research forum for scholarly communication. R. Gardner affirmed that this symposium should welcome all RU faculty, not just RUL faculty. Gaunt signaled the difficulty of capturing faculty attention on such issues and that we would have to develop a hook relevant to their interests. The details of the symposium (date, length, and potential speakers) have not yet been worked out. Another topic that might spur discussion is the recent research on how students are using the web.
M. Wilson, in her capacity as co-chair of the Scholarly Communications Committee, noted that the current debates regarding scholarly communications and other efforts to develop alternate models all have to do with access issues.
M. Wilson also underlined the need for advocacy/publicity efforts in order to encourage faculty discussions regarding these important issues. The first of these efforts will be to increase awareness of these issues by our own librarian colleagues at the November faculty meeting. If you have good ideas and suggestions, please share them with M. Gaunt and M. Wilson.
c. Charges to Committees
Planning Committee (PC): Faculty Line Allocation
Rules of Procedure Committee (ROP): The ROP should review faculty election procedures, focusing on the development of a specific timeline for activities relating to annual faculty election to be shared with the CC. It is necessary to reconcile date inconsistencies that currently exist in the Bylaws.
M. Wilson suggested working backward from the date of taking office: July 1. Thus, names of newly elected librarians must be available during the last week of June, and one can work backwards into May for nominations. The ROP committee is the nominating body: the committee should initially solicit nominations or self-nominations from the faculty, the nominator should remain anonymous. Then, the committee should choose the most qualified candidates to place on the final ballot.
M. Gaunt outlined the FASIP procedures and some related issues. According to the FASIP guidelines, anyone on the faculty is eligible to receive a merit increase, with the exception of those whose length of service is less than one year.
In the past, the practice has been to utilize librarianship as the chief criteria for merit increases, with scholarship and service given importance, but lesser weight. As the final recommendations in the process are made by the deans, M. Gaunt noted that the documentation for the basis of the awards is not always clear. A CV does not always document well contributions in librarianship. She also asked how units were evaluating librarianship contributions of non-tenure track librarians in relation to tenured and tenure-track librarians. In some cases these were regarded as most deserving in the unit. What message is this sending? And what does this mean for future staffing in the libraries?
M. Wilson pointed to the importance of the tenured faculty in the clarification of the criteria that dictates what we award people for. It was suggested that the committee be as precise as possible in delineating this criteria, and ask candidates to provide documentation. Au suggested a CV and one page of documentation. Campus representatives Au, Fetzer and Haynes agreed to share criteria in an effort to standardize and review current standards, which M. Gaunt added, are largely the same. The discussion concluded with a consensus to move to more concrete ways of awarding increases.
5. Report of the University Librarian (M. Gaunt)
The budget to the University, and hence to the libraries this year is a good one, as the state economy was doing well when the budget was released. Next year is problematic, and as a result, we should be careful about increasing ongoing commitments to any great degree. R.Sewell has allocated $100,000 for new e-resources. 31% of collection budget currently goes to e-information, hence we must consider how we will market, present, and inform our users of the manifold resources we have. A future special issue of the RUL Report may be dedicated to e-information and services.
Njedge.net has become the main statewide network. VALE is looking for ways to collaborate with Njedge. A major symposium hosted by Njedge is being planned for March and will focus on collaboration across the state using the network.
RUL is halfway to its goal of 9.25 million dollars. There are five more years to reach this goal.
RUL wants to target funds for:
Au asked for news of ELF. M. Gaunt reported that there was no new information. The delay is due to the fact that NJ must first sell the bonds, establish guidelines for how funds are to be used before RU can utilize the funds. This should take place shortly. Committee consensus was that hardware problems mean that the plethora of e-resources RUL has access to cannot be fully exploited.
b. Campus Reports:
Au for Newark: Newark recently hosted an Urban Diaries program in conjunction with the Newark Literacy Program. The program will also be shown at the Newark PL. An exhibition entitled AContemporary Portuguese Prints: 1980-2000@ will open on 10/4 at the Newark Library. A campus SROA is underway in conjunction with the Newark Museum and the Newark PL. The museum seeks to digitize images relating to its collection of African-American art. The Newark PL seeks to digitize a portion of its Newark maps, and the Institute of Jazz studies will prepare a digital exhibit. The Newark Campus recently appointed dt ogilvie Associate Provost for Information Technology, and the Jazz Institute is searching for an Associate Director.
T. Haynes for Camden: New students are invited to RU-sponsored activities at local sights. The two-story windows on the old section of the library are being replaced.
M. Fetzer for New Brunswick: For new appointments began their positions in July and August: S. Tama, S. Hines, P. Libutti, J. Niessen, and T. Kuchi.
Gaunt for RUL: Special Collections has been awarded a grant of nearly $100,000 for the processing of the Roebling papers, which document, among other things, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. Searches for the humanities digital librarian, sciences digital librarian, and two music/performing arts librarian positions are ongoing.
The thoughts of all RUL remain with those who suffered personal losses during the recent WTC attack.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
RUL Faculty Secretary