The meeting being called to order, its agenda was adopted and previous approval of the May 30 minutes was noted.
Welcome to new members of the committee: Niessen, Mardikian, Mullen
The subcommittee met once since our last meeting, in July. It discussed Jeanne Boyle's grid reports but the discussion was too preliminary to report on it at this time.
The June faculty meeting discussed the topic; its discussion is recorded at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/rul_faculty/minutes/rulfac_07-06-08.shtml . Our chair proposed that we draft a document to send to Rules of Procedure Committee to be used to frame new bylaws that would be returned for our approval at our October 17 meeting. These would then be put onto the agenda for the faculty meeting on November 16th. Shall we complete the current fiscal year with the current organization, and propose a more rapid change, with approval of a ballot measure by November for inclusion in this year's election cycle? It was agreed that this was feasible, with the March 7 meeting still providing us sufficient time to revisit matters.
The committee discussed in turn a succession of proposed changes to the "Councils" draft:
On the current councils, some AULs are formal members, while the others are welcome but not named. The Councils draft document does not explicitly mention digital library development, but due to the pervasiveness of digital issues it is desirable that the AUL-DLS be present on both councils.
The Councils document is not very explicit about the function and governance of the two councils. One of our members wondered if it should be made more explicit, but another noted that this ambiguity was intentional. After some discussion and at the suggestion of the chair we tabled this discussion.
It was proposed that all AULs be free to attend the councils. The proposal was approved that "[All] AULs are welcome to attend both councils." Our committee was somewhat disinclined to grant all AULs voting membership on both councils, but preferred to leave this option up to the decision of the councils.
The committee approved the first of these options, considering that with this addition the council would be (one member fewer) in size than the User Services Council and that TAS is considerably larger than Cataloging & Metadata Services.
The purpose in doing this was to recognize the IJS as a nationally prominent, premiere collection of RUL to ensure that its needs are supported, and to facilitate communication and long range planning within the organization. At the same time there was concern that this representation was burdensome for the IJS. It was agreed to leave representation to both councils in the document.
Agreed: leave this question up to the councils.
a. The Use of Annual Appointments (Gaunt)
This issue and priorities for faculty lines gained added prominence as the result of the recent AAUP/Rutgers contract negotiations. The AAUP wanted some mention of their position and interest in advancement, but the administration did not accept this. Gaunt indicated Academic Vice President will likely soon be inviting us to express our views on the rights of one-year appointees. She distributed a handout on non-tenure track faculty in RUL: currently 8 in all: 3 in NBL, 2 in TAS, 2 in Dana, 1 in Administration. Our most common reason for making such appointments has been immediate need and the inability to recruit tenure track faculty immediately. As a practical matter, we can open a search early in advance of a retirement or other expected vacancy.
We need to formulate our views as to whether we want annual appointments and, if so, why? Many in RUL feel strongly about this matter and would like an opportunity to weigh in on it.
The university has put the "clinical faculty" initiative on hold, the counterargument being that our status as a research university is undermined by expending salary money on clinical lines that do not contribute directly to our research output.
It would be helpful to termed appointees if they better understood the rationale for their presence. This is a good opportunity to air the matter and build consensus on a perennial concern.
Action: Gaunt will seek to learn how soon the administration will need this information, then she will craft a charge in consultation with the RUL units and councils, discuss it with this committee, and then with the entire faculty.
b. Priorities for Faculty Lines (Gaunt)
The new AAUP contract stipulates the expenditure of $12 million toward the creation of 100 new faculty lines over the next four years. Gaunt doubts Furmanski will establish a committee to apportion the dedicated funds across the units. But we should consider what to request in the context of this initiative. First of all, we have 8.58 frozen faculty lines in RUL and 3 in recruitment. Gaunt distributed a handout: the frozen lines are 7 in NBL, 1 in TAS, and 0.58 in Dana. Gaunt would like to be able to tell Furmanski that support for the funding of these lines will enable RUL to spend more on collections. This requires marshalling good arguments for the importance of filling the frozen lines, if not adding new ones. If we were to add new lines, what would they be? Preservation was noted as an urgent, understaffed need, and the ongoing activity of the New Brunswick Exploratory Committee was noted. Gaunt will charge both RUL units and the councils to express their views and initiate a holistic discussion.
It appears that the distinction between frozen and new lines need not concern us in our presentations to Furmanski. Both the AAUP and the administration are aiming at increasing the number of current faculty, and for their purposes a frozen line is 0 people, and to fill a frozen line is to add a person. We can use the relationship between salary and collection money to get both more people and more collection money. Our Strategic Planning Goals should also be part of the presentation to Furmanski.
c. Review of the Planning Committee (Joseph)
The existing Planning Committee (i.e., the ad hoc subcommittee of Planning & Coordinating that was charged with ushering in the strategic plan) needs to be renamed, since under university regulations the Planning & Coordinating Committee is the planning committee. It might be called the Strategic Plan & Assessment Committee. In any case a larger, more robust committee than simply a subcommittee of the Planning & Coordinating Committee is needed.
The currently so-named Planning Committee is not part of the bylaws, but is a provisional committee. According to Rutgers regulations, the faculty has to name the membership. The Planning & Coordinating Committee satisfies this regulation and hence we are in effect the proper Planning Committee; we can appoint a task force to extend the work of this subcommittee, but shouldn't call it the Planning Committee.
The chair proposed that we dissolve the subcommittee and ask Boyle and Denda to come up with a proposal on how to carry out its planning and assessment functions within the parameters of university regulations, paying particular attention to its charter and membership. They will lead the discussion on this in our next meeting.
d. Dean Review (Gaunt)
Gaunt distributed a Senate document about dean review procedures. Dr. Furmanski will talk about the Dean Review at his meeting at RUL on September 28. The document talks about a procedure for surveying members of the decanal unit as part of the review. A formal survey may be optional, but we will probably be asked to name 9 or 10 people to serve in the review.