[Draft: March 4, 2004; Approved March 24, 2004]
R. Marker called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.
1. The agenda was adopted by acclamation.
2. Minutes of the Previous Coordinating Committee Meeting. F. Perrone, Faculty Secretary, noted that the date of the opening of the faculty publications exhibition is March 25. The minutes were approved as emended.
3. The Faculty Coordinator had no report.
4. Old Business: None
5. Continuing business: Digital Library Initiative Planning Update.
a. Process check with selectors.
The selectors who are on the Coordinating Committee gave informal reports about the process of getting input from faculty and the kind of feedback they have so far. Some faculty members prefer information discussion to completing a survey. Others responded to email messages. Some selectors plan to meet with members of departmental Library Committees. Other selectors are developing survey instruments to solicit feedback. There was a recent series of focus groups on library services with UMDNJ and School of Nursing faculty, which selectors can also use for this process.
Selectors have found strong support for online resources overall. Specifically, there is interest in the Open URL project, which allows direct linking to full-text journals, and acquisition of more media materials including hard media (DVDs) and online media. One department that relies heavily on data sources would like the library to consider licensing specialized business research data sets. Discussion ensued about the philosophical, technical and cost aspects of acquiring resources limited to select populations. Some faculty members continue to be concerned about book budgets.
b. R. Marker brought up the need to decide how to disseminate information collected by selectors. She recommended forming a small group from the Coordinating and Planning Committees to read, analyze and summarize the selectors' reports. We hope to have a summary report by the next Coordinating Committee meeting. We also need to prepare for the focus groups. In response to a question, there was discussion of studying circulation statistics by department, which will probably be done later in the process.
c. Pre-planning for DLI 2. R. Becker, Chair, Planning Committee, distributed a document on how to involve faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. M. Gaunt reported on Cabinet's discussion of these issues. A program is being planned on information literacy. Further programs will be planned once we have more feedback from the surveys and the focus groups. There will probably be a presentation inviting people to imagine what the library of the future will be like, in the context of changes in funding, the impact of the Open Access movement, and other changes, conducted by an outside facilitator. This presentation will be followed by meetings that will focus on how these ideas apply to services and collections. Focus groups are expected to be completed by the end of April, so the "vision" presentation will probably be held in June, possibly after the June 11 faculty meeting. R. Marker stressed the need to make everyone at RUL feel part of the process.
d. Topical Questions for Focus Groups. R. Marker solicited input from the Coordinating Committee. R. Becker recommended keeping the focus group discussions on a high level. M. Gaunt suggested discussing ways to work with faculty on building an institutional repository and the library's role as publisher, as well as topics related to collections, services, copyright, intellectual property, and information literacy. R. Marker noted the changing nature of projects in which catalog librarians, and the Libraries overall, are becoming involved. Dan O'Connor and Marie Radford will be facilitating the focus groups discussions, which are planned for April. They will consist of 90 minutes sessions over lunch. Facilitators will ask about five probing questions, which will differ among undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. It was agreed that it was important to talk to students about the library as place: why they come to the libraries, how much help they would like from librarians, and the social function of the libraries, including the issue of creating some kind of food area. This discussion will be continued at the next meeting.
6. New Business.
a. J. Boyle, AUL for Public Services and Communications, reported on the planned communications audit. A vendor, Library Communication Strategies, Inc., has been selected. J. Boyle distributed selections from the vendor's proposal. The purpose of the audit is to review how we communicate our message to our constituents and to ourselves. The Libraries will work actively with the vendor in completing the audit and Harry Glazer will serve as the liaison. We will also need to create a small "marketing" team from the Libraries. Library Communications Strategies is proposing web-based surveys of faculty members and students, on-the-spot interviews, a survey of librarians, and one-on-one interviews. We expect a final report in July. The concept of a communications audit fits in with the Digital Library Initiative planning objective of listening to users, and is unique in the country. M. Gaunt noted that we do not want to overlap too much with the Digital Library Initiative planning in soliciting information from the same people, and that the communications audit is not evaluative, but designed to discover whether people are getting information. In answer to a question, J. Boyle replied that the firm will be interviewing key "influencers" such as deans and administrators. Web-based surveys will be sent to a sample to catch those who are less interested or informed. A sample of 10,000 students will be used, and a return of at least 10 percent is expected. Discussion ensued over avoiding overlap between the two projects, and how to introduce the communications audit process to librarians and staff. In answer to a question, J. Boyle described the role of the marketing team as vetting questions, and helping choose people to interview, among other activities. Forums will probably be held on the New Brunswick, Piscataway, Newark and Camden campuses to introduce the project. Discussion also arose over how the Libraries' message can be expressed in a succinct way.
7. Report of the University Librarian. M. Gaunt reported that Dr. Philip Furmanski spoke at the Administrators' Lunch about the Task Force on Student Learning and Life, which will be an ongoing process of how we understand what it means to be a student at Rutgers, both in regard to curriculum and co- curricular activities. The Libraries will be involved in some respect. A University Route 18 Committee chaired by Paul Leath has been formed: beginning this summer and for the next four years, major construction on Route 18 will seriously disrupt traffic between Route 1 and the John Lynch Bridge. A separate library committee chaired by Farideh Tehrani will be set up to plan how the libraries will deal with the impact of the construction. We will probably try to minimize movement between the campuses, including setting up teleconferencing equipment at the Douglass Library. Finally, NJEdge is looking at the possibility of collaborative purchasing and delivery of online media material. M. Page remarked that VALE's evaluation committee has also looked at this issue, and noted the possible impact on our strategic planning process.
8. Other Business. B. Hancock (Chair, Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee) reported that the Committee has reviewed the Guidelines for Activities and Documentation with Respect to the Reappointment and Promotion of Library Faculty, and found it to be a sound document, although there are a few areas that need clarification. R. Becker solicited feedback on the plans for the merger of the Planning and Coordinating Committees. R. Marker emphasized that we need to be sensitive to concerns about the composition of the merged committee and faculty governance under the new structure. She also noted that the agenda of the March 5 Faculty Meeting will be reordered to introduce the proposal and explain why the bylaw change that was discussed at the November faculty meeting is not on this agenda. T. Glynn (Collection Development Council) reported that we will purchase the online database, U.S. Serials Set.
9. R. Marker adjourned the meeting at 11:50 am.