The meeting being called to order, its agenda was adopted and approval of the January 30 minutes was given pending minor corrections.
The Chair updated the committee on the discussion about the substitution for Tom Frusciano as humanities representative on the Committee on Scholarly Communication for the balance of his sabbatical. Rules of Procedure found none of the next highest vote getters for this position was available or willing to serve, and the Committee on Scholarly Communication waived its option to request a special election to supply a substitute.
Michael Joseph noted that in accordance with the faculty bylaws, it will be up to the University Librarian in consultation with the faculty (represented by the Planning & Coordinating Committee (P&CC)) to determine whether the CSC should continue for another year. The previous meeting of the P&CC stated its support for the organization of a forum on the NIH open access policy. Joseph requests that the CSC communicate more with the RULF and that it continue to hold informational forums as articulated in the Committee's charge: "To inform their work, the committee is charged to hold regular open discussions with all RUL faculty. These could take the form of monthly faculty meetings called by the Faculty Coordinator in consultation with the committee."
Joseph invited the P&CC to offer the CSC additional ideas on its activity.
It was suggested that the CSC could be permitted to sunset. Its agenda ought in truth to be embraced by RULF as a whole. Or, the CSC could be a task force with a finite term of existence.
A liaison noted that two members of her faculty were very interested in the Harvard decision. We need to become better attuned to the mindset of departmental faculty, learn what they think we can do to help them. The CSC should operationalize our scholarly communication efforts in collaboration with Furmanski's office. We need to capture their attention with our activities.
One member stated there should be separate committees for scholarly communication in the sciences and humanities. The information on the sciences is huge and requires special attention. RUL and CSC ought to be in conversation with our faculty and with other institutions to determine subject and disciplinary areas of focus in our efforts to populate the repository. Much is happening in the sciences, not just the NIH. A recent forum on scholarly communication in the sciences lasted several days. The science disciplines themselves differ greatly.
Joseph asked the P&CC to suggest how the CSC might fulfill its charge more effectively.
It was suggested that the CSC bring forward an action plan, with clear objectives, as part of its proposal for the next year that includes a status report on RUcore and the submissions portal. The CSC should also communicate more frequently to keep everyone better informed of its activities.
The year-end report should express the committee's views as to how it wants to move forward. The CSC should create a "library" of significant articles and texts about scholarly communication that are important for RUL to be aware of.
The working group (Glynn, Niessen, and Womack) presented its latest draft of the resolution concerning the exclusion of library faculty from the provision of additional family leave that was provided for by the recent Rutgers faculty contract. The draft was approved with amendments and will be presented to the RUL Faculty Meeting in March for its approval with an expression of concern that RUL Faculty be represented at contract negotiations in the future.
It was suggested that the full faculty may wish to recognize the contributions of retiring faculty members in some public way at a faculty meeting. What might be the best approach so that each member is treated similarly? Members suggested a resolution be prepared by the Chair and the University Librarian that includes an account of the contributions of the retiree to RUL. Longer texts will be entered in the minutes of faculty meetings, but one-paragraph précis prepared for oral presentation. Moving forward, the University Librarian will be notified of forthcoming retirements and provide for suitable tributes.
Report on the status of open lines: Distributed the Report as well as four Academic Position Profiles.
In Dana Library, interviews for Director are in process, the science position is in recruitment, and two new APPs were distributed for discussion, Social Sciences Librarian and Access Services Librarian.
In New Brunswick, applications are being received for the Business and Physical Sciences Librarian positions as well as the Instructional Technology Development Librarian, the latter organizationally part of Research & Instructional Services (RIS). Three positions are soon to be vacated, and seven positions vacated and frozen.
Robeson: Position was approved to recruit an Instruction/Reference Librarian.
TAS: Applications are being received for Multimedia and E-Monographs Catalog and Metadata Librarian.
It was asked whether the new RIS position (Instructional Technology Development Librarian) would have the New Brunswick Library Faculty (NBLF) as its home unit for purposes of promotion and tenure review. This seems logical, but it was suggested that Fredenburg clarify this with Valeda Dent and that NBLF also invite Dent to address it.
P&CC has provided Niessen with suggestions for presentation to the CSC. He will summarize these for Gaunt, Joseph, and Denda already this week. The CSC will prepare a proposal for its future activity for presentation to the next P&CC meeting.
The faculty resolution was approved after light revision. The working group will present it to the RUL Faculty meeting along with our concern for future RULF representation in AAUP negotiations.
For the future, retiring faculty will be recognized with short texts presented orally, and longer ones to be inserted in the minutes. Joseph and Denda will work out a future mechanism for recognizing retirees.
The responsible faculty body for RIS positions will be addressed by the appropriate colleagues.
The CSC will present its report and proposal regarding its future status.
Bobbie Tipton will check with the Dean's Evaluation Committee to see whether she can provide the P&CC with a brief update.
The documents regarding licensure rules and tenure- and non-tenure track faculty will be shared via Sakai.
The Chair invited Leister as representative of the Technical Services Council to keep the P&CC informed about the roll out of the submissions module of RUcore.
Jim Niessen, Faculty Secretary