Approved as Amended: January 21, 2004
R. Marker called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.
1. The agenda of the meeting was adopted.
2. The committee reviewed the minutes of the Coordinating Committee of November 19, 2003. M. Gaunt recommended changing ServQUAL to LibQUAL in 5.b. In 5(Collections), M. Gaunt recommended the following change: "There are certain research areas where selectors are" to "There are certain research areas where selectors may..." The minutes were approved as amended.
3. Report of the Faculty Coordinator: R. Marker reminded everyone of the electronic mailing list for the Coordinating Committee: firstname.lastname@example.org
4. Old Business: Campus Representation on the Coordinating Committee. R. Womack, Chair, Rules of Procedure Committee, spoke about the difficulty of incorporating a description of the new procedure into the Bylaws. It was suggested that because of the need to emphasize that representatives will be elected not selected, in Section V.6. "designate" should be changed to "elect." Discussion ensued. In response to a question about whether there were too few faculty members in Camden or Newark to have an election, Ann Watkins (Newark) responded that she felt an election could be held. After more discussion, it was decided to instruct the Rules of Procedure Committee to make the change. It was also decided to add that the Faculty Coordinator should be notified in writing by June 30. R. Womack will circulate the revised version and it will be presented to the next Faculty Meeting. R. Marker thanked R. Womack and the Rules of Procedure Committee.
5. Continuing Business: Digital Library Initiative Planning Update: The Collection Development Council have met and developed a questionnaire for faculty about their use of library services and collections. R. Marker mentioned that librarians should be pro-active in making suggestions to faculty about digital initiatives. She mentioned the gift of an electronic book to SCILS by Todd Hunt: will be this book be available for use by everyone? Could it be used as an electronic reserve? How will it fit into a future institutional repository? An institutional repository can encompass more than the early publication of journal articles. R. Marker asked for input from CDC members at the Coordinating Committee. M. Page remarked that the Council was concerned about the role of selectors in the process and that the surveys should be conducted in an organized fashion.
M. Gaunt distributed a document "Background for DLI II Department Discussions and Questions." She commented that there might be differences among the humanities, social sciences and science faculty. The Cabinet wants to make it easy for selectors, and suggested that in their reports, they bullet themes from their discussions with faculty, and take out extreme comments. She questioned whether selectors who work with many departments will have to visit each one. The timing of the discussions can also be flexible: liaisons can put a question on a departmental list serve, can speak at departmental meetings, conduct a focus group, or hold informal discussions, depending on whatever is most convenient for the particular department. As far as sharing findings, open discussion among selectors was recommended. M. Gaunt would like the Coordinating Committee to take a major role in this process, perhaps planning the open session. She noted that the questionnaire did not necessarily just apply to technology, but is open.
P. Piermatti commended that doctoral students in pharmacy who are working in hospitals have difficulty accessing online resources because of firewalls around hospitals. M. Gaunt re-emphasized that although the questions will be general, it is important to take into consideration differences among disciplines. In answer to a comment, it was agreed that summaries of findings could be more descriptive than bulleted lists if the selector felt it appropriate. It was noted that some faculty are very advanced technologically and could be great partners in the future. After discussion, it was decided that liaisons should try to reach all departments, holding combined meetings if necessary. There was discussion of how transparent we should be, considering that we don’t want to overwhelm faculty with unnecessary information or take up their time. It was noted that the Implementation Committee will not be set up until Fall 2004, and the plan will probably not be in place until Spring 2005. The Coordinating Committee will plan an open discussion in mid-March.
There was discussion over how the plan will filter down to individual selectors. M. Gaunt said that campus directors will speak to library faculty members and a message will be send to the Rutgers University Libraries Faculty list serve. Various additions were suggested for the “Background” document, including a crib sheet for selectors, a narrative summary, and a note to refer questions to selectors or to the Coordinating Committee. There was further discussion about the role of the collection development team leaders and possible differences in approach among campuses. T. Glynn will bring up these matters at the next Collection Development Council meeting.
6. New Business
a. Documentation for "Librarianship": A document "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Librarianship in the Reappointment/Promotion Process" was distributed. M. Gaunt noted that this year there is a new Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Chair of the Promotions Review Committee. There was discussion of ways to document librarianship, considering that library faculty did not have a librarianship portfolio analogous to a teaching portfolio. It was noted that teaching portfolios all contain things in common that could be compared and evaluated: observations, student evaluations and syllabi. R. Marker noted that in the cataloging department, measures such as the number of authority records, original cataloging records, and errors are enumerated and quality of records are evaluated, but that nothing similar exists for reference or instruction. The existence of letters from faculty or other users showing the impact of reference or instruction was mentioned. The possibility of evaluation or observation of bibliographic instruction sessions was discussed. Many people felt that this was problematic. It was noted that some librarians did more bibliographic instruction than others. It was suggested that a list of possible types of documentation could be added to the document. Documentation of activity versus assessment was discussed. M. Gaunt spoke to the importance of impact, but the difficulty in measuring it in some cases. In answer to a suggestion, R. Becker commented that in the past an effort to formalize the process of observation led to a grievance and was discontinued. M. Gaunt emphasized the importance if having strong documentation, particularly when there is disagreement over a candidate.
P. Piermatti noted that we had to consider how reference was changing, being increasingly done through electronic mail. She noted that librarians already have portfolios of a sort, but there was a need to slenderize them, and emphasize what we are actually doing. She suggested that in some cases a librarian might have to be observed, but it shouldn’t be prescribed.
J. Cassel noted the difficulty of measuring the impact of public service, including even agreeing what the questions on the document meant. For example, what constitutes a welcoming behavior? People have different styles of reference. She noted that in electronic reference, we do observe, and that there has been disagreement; it is important not to inhibit creativity.
It was noted that although junior librarians meet with unit directors annually, they are not evaluated by their peers until reappointment. The committee was asked whether it was helpful to include peer evaluations earlier. Discussion ensued. It was noted that senior librarians could attend meetings with directors, if it was agreed upon. M. Gaunt solicited input from the junior faculty present. Discussion ensued. Someone commented that it was the responsibility of the director to solicit feedback from other colleagues. Everyone agreed that the director should regularly touch base with senior faculty members so there are no surprises: it is the responsibility of both the director and the senior faculty to ensure that this happens.
M. Gaunt mentioned an old document (Guidelines for Activities and Documentation with Respect to the Reappointment and Promotion of Library Faculty) which gives examples of documentation. She asked Brian Hancock, Chair, Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee, if the committee could re-evaluate this document.
6.B. Planning Committee Proposal. R. Becker, Chair, Planning Committee discussed a proposal to merge the Planning and Coordinating Committees into a strong Planning Committee that will also take care of faculty business. The Planning Committee is mandated by the university. He noted the decrease over the years in library faculty members and the increase in numbers of committees, beyond what is mandated by the university. There was discussion of who would be on this new committee. Should all committee chairs be on the committee? The document suggests changing the make-up of the Planning Committee, so members don’t have to be committee chairs and don’t have to be tenured. Discussion ensued, particularly over the advisability of having non-tenured faculty members on the committee. Although some people had reservations, it was generally agreed that non-tenured faculty would bring fresh ideas and new perspectives to the Planning Committee.
It was decided to continue this discussion at the next Coordinating Committee meeting in January.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.