The meeting being called to order, its agenda was adopted and previous approval of the September 19 minutes was noted.
Denda and Boyle were charged to examine the future of the former planning committee. They will report more in November. Denda believes this committee should be deleted from the web listing; but she and Boyle believe strategic planning is still a function that might be usefully focused by a subcommittee of the Planning & Coordinating Committee. Joseph expressed the hope that Planning & Coordinating will continue to consult with Boyle with regard to planning.
Marker proposed (on behalf of RoP) that a charge for the councils be crafted for the website based on the text about scope in the "Two Councils" document. She noted that the charge of the councils can change from time to time, because it is based on the Strategic Plan, which itself recommends flexibility. The councils are not currently listed on the RUL Faculty portion of the website, presumably because their function was considered to be administrative, and each chaired by an AUL.
Joseph argued that, because the councils are moving under the purview of the faculty, they should be listed on the faculty website. He will produce the changes recommended by RoP and share them with P&CC via email based on the first sentence under each council in the Two Councils document, as follows: for the Library Resources Council "Improve the quality of scholarly resources that support the advancement of academic excellence at Rutgers University, increase the Libraries' resources to the levels of peer AAU public universities and manage those resources more strategically and efficiently"; for the User Services Council "Enhance the effectiveness of library services for students and the development of library facilities as learning spaces; improve the quality of information services that support the advancement of academic excellence at Rutgers University; improve awareness of the resources, service facilities, and support available to all of the Libraries' constituencies." A short description (a sentence or a clause) should be placed in the Bylaws as well. This and various brief editorial changes will be submitted to the RoP for assent.
Rutgers is committed to at least $12 million for new tenured faculty positions over the 4 years of the contract.. This item is on the agenda of the Public Services Council, possibly also the Collection Development Council. There have been discussions in various bodies and councils. Both NBFC and the Tech Services Council in their preliminary discussions gave high priority to a faculty position for the coordination of gifts processing.
The contract includes new language for the merit review process. This year the 3% salary increase is across the board; there is no merit. Next year, to be discussed in Spring 2008, there will be no across the board; everything will be merit. Awards will be 0%-9%. Gaunt suggests we need a more articulated and understood way to present arguments for a merit increase. Discussion revealed that RULF uses a variety of documents as the basis for FASIP. Newark uses documents submitted for this purpose, while Camden does the same with an updated c.v. New Brunswick Libraries Faculty and Special Collections/University Archives use their annual reports for the same purpose. Newark doesn't require personal annual reports, nor does TAS.
The new merit procedure is called "enhanced" salary and will be prospective rather than retrospective; Dr. Furmanski left it to the unit to determine whether it prefers to use a one- or two-year window for purposes of evaluation. RUL as a unit can and must decide its own time frame as the basis for the merit increase.
The contract requires only the c.v. be submitted for evaluation, but Gaunt believes this is inadequate and more is needed. People at all levels (PEC, Director/AUL, UL, and VP) need to know the basis for the evaluation.. Dr. Furmanski wants to see all units awarding merit for outstanding activities. Gaunt believes the Peer Evalution Committee (PEC) will likely retain the same function, but it's important that the PEC announce its criteria more clearly, including whether they choose to place more emphasis on librarianship, research, or service. The P&CC expressed concern that any announcement of criteria should give librarians sufficient advanced notice, and questioned the fairness of attaching greater weight to one criterion over another. Gaunt noted it is not necessary to choose one or another criterion, but the PEC's criteria must be explicit. She believes our current procedure is "about right."
The open forum after the RULF meeting on November 16 will focus on priorities for scholarly communication; Gaunt will consult with Niessen and Sewell as co-chairs of the Committee on Scholarly Communication about the forum. We need to focus on how we will determine what our priorities are and what they might be. Gaunt mentioned as possible options (without weighting one over another) open access scholarly journals, populating the repository, and digization projects.
The chair noted that "there is a new kind of RUL codified in this document." Diversity and the undergraduate curriculum are stressed; there is more movement toward the centralization of functions, but also devolution where rapid response is needed. There is also mention of outreach to the community. RUL is mentioned as a facilitator of distance education, provider of facilities for group study, and in information literacy assessment.
Gaunt asked the committee how we would go about implementing recommendation 3 on p. 18 of the document: A broad-based committee should be formed to identify curricula and assessment implications of the goals of communication and information literacy in an information age. It was noted in discussion that Rutgers' curricular leaders are not making information literacy, critical thinking, and writing an integrated goal across the board. Gaunt argued we need a dialogue about this across the campus, bringing our ideas to the table; she believes this "broad-based committee" is the most important idea in the report. In further discussion it was noted that instruction and information literacy coordinator has been considered the number one hiring priority by NBLF, and that the inconsistency of academic departments in addressing information literacy is much more troubling at the undergraduate than the graduate level.
A report on the status of open lines and a position description for the Business Information Services Librarian position were distributed. It was agreed that the search for the latter must move forward. If Dr. Furmanski funds "new" lines, we could move to fill frozen positions and reallocate the funds on currently frozen lines' funds to collections.
Filling the Physical Sciences Librarian position is urgent, and finding an interim person for this position will be difficult.
In the rest of her report, the University Librarian addressed
The University Librarian and nominees who were also members of this committee left the room for this discussion. The remaining members of the committee selected a list of ten names from a larger list of individuals who were nominated to the chair and expressed a willingness to serve. The chair announced his intention to submit these names to Dr. Furmanski.