Minutes of December 19, 2007 meeting

Jeanne Boyle, Kayo Denda, Marianne Gaunt, Tom Glynn, Michael Joseph (chair), Elizabeth Leister, Jackie Mardikian, Rhonda Marker, Laura Mullen, Jim Niessen (secretary), Bobbie Tipton (remote), Myoung Wilson, Ryan Womack
Lila Daum Fredenburg

1.-3. Call to order, Agenda, Minutes

The meeting being called to order, its agenda was adopted and previous approval of the November 28 minutes was noted.

4. Report of the Faculty Coordinator

Tom Glynn will chair PPAC. Joseph has spoken to Rules of Procedure with regard to changes in the bylaws to the effect that 1) every faculty committee should have a chair, 2) every member of each committee should be suitably credentialed, i.e. of suitable rank, and 3) committees should have a certain number of members.

There was no quorum at the meeting of SCILS faculty that was to have deliberated upon the change in the name of the SCILS doctoral program, hence it could not take action and must revisit the matter later.

Joseph noted there was a moving memorial to Veronica Calderhead on December 18, organized by Ann Watkins. Professor after professor got up to say how extraordinary Veronica was at doing the things that we librarians are uniquely positioned to understand and fully appreciate. It is always a bitter irony that loss alone seems able to underscore these achievements for us, and people who have faith and people who don't have faith will find many different reasons why that is true, but I think everyone would agree that it is a good thing to take stock of the achievements of our colleagues, not only the high notes, but the strong middle and lower registers as well and to let ourselves be inspired by them. So, thank you Bobbi, and please thank your colleagues, for us too. And thank you Veronica.

The motion on family leave is tabled until February 20, 2008, in time for its presentation at the March 2008 faculty meeting.

Joseph will see if the second highest vote getter for the humanities position on the Committee on Scholarly Communication can be appointed to that committee.

5. Old Business

Licensing Rules: This document will go to the Presidents' [of New Jersey higher education] Council. In the meantime there will be various venues at which the RUL Faculty can make its views known. Gaunt noted that the document is too detailed about what librarians do, for instance stating there must be liaisons with all academic departments. Licensing is something that happens once and for all, unlike accreditation that takes place every five years. The committee discussed various points in the document:

p.8: The definition of information literacy here is from 1989; should it be updated?

p.9: The wording "qualified library professional" opens the possibility of a non-MLS individual, for instance from an academic department, be placed in a librarian's position.

p.15b: Liaisons are desirable, but it is inappropriate that this operational issue be made a condition of licensing.

p.16: Participation in a consortium should not be a requirement in a licensing agreement.

p.16d: The initial sentence is good, should be combined with the first sentence of e; d is too detailed. Stop after the first sentence.

p.16f: This passage is good as it stands. It is true that libraries should catalog their holdings.

p.16g: This passage is too detailed. We carry out archiving in too many ways to have a consistent method.

p.17: The details about how to carry out instruction are unnecessary and should be left out, but the preceding endorsement of library instruction itself is helpful and should be retained.

p.17k: While we do document outcomes in information literacy, it's not necessary. It repeats in part what was already stated in 16h, with unnecessary detail.

Gaunt will communicate to Furmanski that while we support the identified goals and purposes of libraries and information literacy, we find the level of detail in this document about how it should be done to be to prescriptive. . We are also concerned about the weakening of the MLS requirement. We will prepare a document and place its discussion on the agenda of the March meeting.

Non-tenure track librarians: As a follow-up to the AAUP contract it was agreed that the university and the faculty would further discuss the appropriateness of non-tenure track faculty positions. All units will be asked for their views by Furmanski at some future time and it would be well if the Libraries faculty were prepared to address this issue from their viewpoint. As a general rule we prefer to avoid awarding non-tenure track appointments, but they are hard to avoid under certain conditions: for filling a vacancy before a permanent person is in place, and when funds are short to recruit a tenure track position. If there are other cases where we feel we need non-tenure track positions, then we need to describe those circumstances. Currently, there are long standing non-tenure track positions in Alexander, Dana, and TAS. Only TAS thus far has indicated there is a great need for non-tenure track librarians. Gaunt is unsure how convincing this is if the description of the duties mirror that of the tenure-track faculty; some of the positions being described would seem to be tenure-track positions or else higher- level paraprofessionals rather than non-tenure track faculty.

It must be noted that part-time and full-time faculty are separate issues.

The discussion of non-tenure track librarians in the New Brunswick Libraries Faculty meeting revealed there are many special library needs, but no overarching philosophical justification for the measures taken. The case of TAS is likely the same.

There is a concern about long standing untenured people becoming in effect tenured without the tenure procedure. The administration would distinguishes between non-tenure track positions and clinical faculty status. The bottom line for the academic units is that the tenured faculty model is what moves the institution forward through scholarship and service. We can say that non-tenure track faculty are temporary solutions for special situations. There are many positions at the university for PhDs who are not faculty.

Gaunt will draft a document summarizing the main points of this issue. This may become an agenda item in the March faculty meeting.

6. New Business

Diversity: President McCormick has announced he wants to have a major diversity initiative. Immigration, society, and race make diversity increasingly important for our recruitment and training.

Lila Fredenburg presented a proposal for diversity education in the Rutgers University Libraries, Blueprint for Growing our Diversity. She noted that diversity is not synonymous with affirmation action. The latter is a legally mandated recruitment program, whereas diversity is a philosophy for celebrating differences. Affirmative action will fail if diversity education is not in place first, but succeed if it is.

The program is designed to reach out across the university, involving at this point, SCILS, Mason Gross, and the Center for Race & Ethnicity. It is a five-point program with lectures, workshops, presentations, dialog, and conversations. Some parts are free of cost, while Fredenburg is securing funding for the parts that cost money, like the interactive theater performance and the facilitator.

In a related matter, it was noted that the libraries allocated a faculty administrative position to create our diversity internships. We ought to track our graduates, call them back to speak to SCILS, and invite them to network with each other.

Denda is a member of the Rutgers University Martin Luther King Task Force, which according to its website "intends to promote, recommend, and present programs, activities, and projects, inside and outside the classroom, which commemorate and make more visible not only Dr. King's work but also the work of those who were his contemporaries and peers in the black freedom movement." Fredenburg and Denda will discuss how their efforts might be coordinated.

Each of the five parts of the Blueprint can potentially stand alone, so that colleagues unable to attend all events will still get something out of those they can attend. This is not a cumulative process that requires attendance at all parts. The Blueprint can stimulate participation outside the libraries by making the lectures part of the SCILS lecture series and by taping the lectures.

Joseph invited Fredenburg to visit the committee later and report as the program is in process.

7. Report of the University Librarian

Gaunt distributed a document on open lines dated December 19, 2007. In the Robeson Library, Jim Nettleman's position will not open until August, 2008.

Gaunt has received feedback after the last discussion on new faculty positions from the designated point persons, and will prepare a new document based on these submissions in the new year. Two issues to consider are whether we consider all positions equally important, or should we group them into priority 1, 2, and 3? In making a case for these positions, we will need to make a case for how these positions will make an impact on the university community. Gaunt thinks we can ask for three positions in all.

It was noted that the advertisement for the Metadata Librarian in ACRL News was much longer than the one in the same publication for the Business Librarian. Gaunt noted that the journals to which we send postings often place them wherever there is space, depending on our timing in submitting them for an issue. Gaunt will, however, ask Human Resources how this happened.

The position associated with Lourdes Vázquez will be added to the report on the status of open lines.

Norma Blake will be asking the vendors of the New Jersey Knowledge Initiative (NJKI) databases for pricing if new state funding does not come through. Rutgers students are involved in advocacy efforts, and Sewell has spoken to the student leaders. It is not known whether funding will be restored or roll over. Corzine's State of the State address on January 9 may give us a clearer picture.

8. Concluding Outcomes, Tasks, and Accomplishments

9. Future Agenda Items

The discussion on lines will be revisited in our January meeting.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Niessen, Faculty Secretary

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)