a. Report on faculty bylaws changes relating to elections-Rules of Procedure Committee (ROP)
The numbers in the RUL faculty bylaws have been changed to accord with those in the University Regulations manual. The RUL faculty bylaws will be amended and new copies distributed to faculty.
The timeline for RUL faculty elections has been re-examined. A Draft Timeline for Faculty Elections recommends that elections be concluded by April 30 of each year. Results would then be announced at the June faculty meeting. These changes of date will be taken to the faculty for approval at the March faculty meeting. If approved, language in the faculty bylaws will be revised to reflect the changes of date.
T. Haynes also inquired if the language in the RUL bylaws necessitating a two-year chairmanship for the ROP could be deleted, since committees are allowed to organize themselves as they see fit. In the interest of continuity, a vice-chair position could be utilized.
a. University Senate resolution on disclosure of FASIP awards
The Coordinating Committee engaged in a long discussion on the potential advantages and disadvantages of, and the general philosophy behind, the disclosure of FASIP awards. It was noted that an individual librarian could examine his/her own record, and engage his/her director or AUL in discussion, if desired. The process, however, may only be grieved if procedural violations occur. It was noted that disclosure of either award recipients or both award recipients and award amounts would not shed light on the reason why the award was given, unless that reason was specifically stated. Even then, the information is inevitably incomplete to those uninvolved in the process, as only the Peer Evaluation Committee had the full information. It was felt that disclosure may engender ill feeling and little gain, and that energies should rather be expended in the development of specific, clear-cut and well-publicized criteria for the awarding of FASIP. At the conclusion of the discussion, Committee consensus was to recommend against the disclosure of annual FASIP awards. Units (Camden, New Brunswick, Newark, Public Services, Special Collections and University Archives, and Technical and Automated Services) are encouraged to discuss the issue among its faculty, and each unit will make their own decision on the disclosure/nondisclosure of FASIP awards, with voting (if utilized) depending on unit voting regulations.
b. Definition of refereed journals
Concern was expressed with the development of a standard definition of refereed journals so that judgements regarding the tenure and promotion of librarians could be fair and equal. It was also pointed out that even if a journal is not refereed, it still might play a "high impact" role in the field, and this impact should be noted in the narrative.
Coordinating Committee discussion also reaffirmed that the Reading Committee must take a larger analytical role in the process. In order to assess the impact and reach of a particular article, and the scholarly and research output of a candidate, the Reading Committee must be familiar with scholarship in the field, including the most recent developments, in order to evaluate the potential impact of a candidate's work. The Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee will produce a set of guidelines for Reading Committees, including a definition of refereed journals for librarianship.
A. Tallau, in her capacity as chair of the Planning Committee (PC), presented a draft copy of the framework for planning, entitled "A New Framework for RUL based on the DLI (Digital Library Initiative)." This document examines what RUL currently does, and what RUL would like to do in the future based on the DLI. The draft document will be given to J. Boyle, the Associate University Librarian for Public Services, and the Council. The draft document will also be on the agenda of the January Coordinating Committee meeting for full discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 a.m.