STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of April 16, 2008 meeting

Present:
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. Jeanne Boyle, John Maxymuk (excused).

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

The meeting being called to order, its agenda was adopted and minutes for March 26 were approved with minor changes

4. Report of the Faculty Coordinator

The chair thanked Kayo Denda for standing in for him during his absence at the March meeting. He requested the final text of the resolution regarding family leave from the family leave working group for transmission to the AAUP.

5. Old Business

Non-tenured faculty (Gaunt)

Gaunt met April 15 with the university committee that is working on this matter. The committee expect to interview all the deans, and Gaunt was the fourth. They said what they heard from her was not very different from what they had heard from the others. They were very interested in how we have used the non-tenure track faculty. Most say they would prefer more fulltime tenure track faculty, but need non-tenure track faculty on occasion. RUL has 7.57 non-tenure track faculty, which is not many. Gaunt detailed what these faculty do: serve specific hours; provide public service; archival processing; teaching.

The committee asked Gaunt about the recruitment for such positions. She replied that they are for the most part not recruited nationally, and we find email lists very effective for our recruitment efforts. In reply to a question about term limits, she indicated that we employ both one- and sometimes three-year appointments. Our review process, with an ad hoc committee, is also similar to other units. As to whether longer terms would serve our purpose, Gaunt replied that one- and three-year terms served our purposes well. Asked about governance, she reported that we are very inclusive, with bylaws stipulating the minimum service for granting of voting rights: one year for Librarian 4’s, and two years for Librarian 5’s. Gaunt thinks this is more generous than other units. Our awarding of merit raises to these appointees is also generous.

Gaunt requested the advice of the Planning and Coordinating Committee (P&CC) regarding how to best answer the university committee’s question about promotions. She was not sure if promotion should be available for such appointees. We currently do not require scholarship and service of non-tenure track positions, so that promotion would have to be based on librarianship. Would we want to make that the sole criterion for promotion when the tenure-track faculty have three requirements? At present we reward our non-tenure track faculty well at merit review time. Is that sufficient recognition? We rarely make “visiting professor” appointments as do the teaching faculty where these are frequently senior faculty. The university committee asked: would you ever promote someone to Librarian 3 without shifting the librarian to the tenure track, as opposed to only awarding merit pay. The key question for RUL is what we want to do.

P&CC expressed discomfort with such promotions because they would create a two-track system and be distracting, even dangerous; librarians expect a single set of standards. It is contradictory and troubling unless we change the terms on which we hire non-tenure track faculty. This question came from one member of the university committee, whose environment may be very different than ours. Professorial ranks have meaning across institutions that ours do not. Still, we have the flexibility to make such appointments in exceptional cases. Generally it is tenure and tenure track that has meaning for us. The university committee also asked about our titles, to which Gaunt replied that we use functional titles to distinguish roles, even though we have librarian rank positions. The use of functional titles struck one member of the university committee as characteristic of clinical faculty. Gaunt believed we might hear more about this issue from the Deans Council in Fall 2007.

Budget strategies (Gaunt)

All academic units have been asked to model 3% and 7% reductions, while administrative units have been asked to model 3%, 7%, and 10% reductions, with an April 15 deadline RUL is currently editing the scenarios for 3% and 7% reductions on collections, services, and salaries and will continue to do so during the semester as we refine priorities.

Lila Daum Fredenburg is preparing a report on administrative services staffing in New Brunswick,, and Valeda Dent will coordinate the analysis of public services budgeting via the two task forces for reference and instruction that she proposed to the New Brunswick Libraries Faculty on April 11.

The forthcoming Content Management System for the website will be a new source of technology to work more efficiently.

6. New Business

RUcore NIH Depository (Marker)

Marker presented and distributed a printout for a PowerPoint presentation, “NIH Public Access Policy and RUcore services.” RUL took on responsibility to facilitate NIH deposits on very short notice, in consultation with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP). ORSP’s interest in NIH compliance is that, failing compliance, not only the Principal Investigator (PI) will have trouble when applying for a new grant but also the PI’s institution and thus other applicants as well. Institutions are being held responsible for their faculty’s compliance.

The RUcore team will provide various services for NIH scholars, as detailed on the new NIH submission portal. The current forms do not accommodate the NIH grant number, PI name, and various agreement forms, so a separate NIH submission form on the RUcore web page is being temporarily used. In answer to a question as to how we can convince faculty to deposit with RUcore if their journals will submit to PubMed Central (PMC) on their behalf, Marker enumerated the extra services we will provide:

Several P&CC members inquired about the status of google indexing of RUcore. Marker reported that this has not yet been achieved.

One member suggested that we seek to have RUcore more prominently linked outside the RUL web page. Then another member suggested that Gaunt bring the recent RUL news announcement about NIH support to the attention of the Deans’ Council. This is an opportunity to raise the profile of RUcore across decanal units and among social scientists and humanists. When RUL contacts academic units about RUcore, we should make sure the relevant liaisons are copied. The NIH announcement invites people to contact Marker or the liaison, but liaisons needed to be aware of such contacts in every case.

Studies show that open access and Google indexing lead to more downloads and expanded readership for deposited articles. A notable example of such findings is “Download Statistics - What Do They Tell Us? The Example of Research Online, the Open Access Institutional Repository at the University of Wollongong, Australia,” by Michael Organ in D-Lib Magazine
Nov. 2006 (v 12, no 11), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/organ/11organ.html .

Marker will demonstrate RUcore and the NIH portal to the Libraries Advisory Committee in the coming week. She noted that the New Brunswick Faculty Council is very aware of the Harvard resolution on open access, and some were heard to say “Rutgers should do that!”

Marker also showed the P&CC Jackson Toby’s home page of listed articles with a link to a RUcore custom search box. Asked whether the provision of the custom search box was routine, Marker stated that it is not routine, but is available upon request to anyone who has a collection of digital objects in RUcore.

In conclusion, the P&CC agreed that RUcore should work with the Committee on Scholarly Communication to include liaisons in the promotion efforts for RUcore.

7. Report of the University Librarian (Gaunt)

Report on the Status of Open Lines

Only the position in Technical and Automated Systems (TAS) has moved ahead, because filling this position was part of Grace Agnew’s reduction plan. All other positions (with the exception of the Dana Director position) are on hold.

Discussion ensued about the difficulties of cross-unit positions (within RUL but split across campuses, or split between RUL and academic units, on the model of split academic positions) and whether we can unfreeze some searches. In theory, sharing an RUL appointment with an academic department would be possible, but it would be very tricky.

What about cluster hires? For RUL to participate in these, collaborations with non-library units are needed, but units we had targeted for cluster hires are pulling back due to higher priorities.

University administration has alerted us that we currently have more frozen lines than we are capable of unfreezing, so we may not freeze any additional lines to collect salary savings on an ongoing basis. Therefore all lines being given up in the budget reduction scenarios will be given back permanently. When a line is frozen, you can use 100% of the salary dollars for other purposes. If we give back all the salary dollars on a line, we will lose the line. . It is conceivable the cuts will be more than predicted, but we don’t know.

8. Concluding Outcomes, Tasks, and Accomplishments

9. Future Agenda Items

Ask Jeanne Boyle to talk about long-range planning and strategic assessment.

10. Adjournment

Respectfully submitted,
Jim Niessen, Faculty Secretary



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_08_04_16.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

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