The meeting came to order at 9:35am.
The agenda was approved.
The minutes of the July meeting had been approved. All the committee chairs and elected representatives are in place.
Since the July meeting, three subgroups had been working on an inventory of roles and opportunities for Rutgers librarians (Niessen, Yang and Boyle), inventory of leadership development programs (Gasparotto and Deodato), and survey of practices in peer institutions (Niessen and Boyle). The discussion began in this order.Leadership roles and opportunities
Niessen presented a list of leadership roles and opportunities he had compiled in consultation with Yang and Boyle. He listed three categories of opportunities: RUL committees, supervisory of personnel by librarians, and campus-wide committees. In the discussion that followed, two new categories were suggested: functional leadership (in areas such as copyright and information literacy), and leadership in professional organizations ("area leadership").
For the meeting Boyle had extracted a brief explanation of five areas of leadership competencies- analytical, personal, communication, organizational, and position, from Brent Ruben's book: What Leaders Need to Know. Members found the breakdown helpful and all five areas of competencies relevant. Boyle stressed that the difference between competencies and skills might have implications for selecting the right leadership programs. The CD that comes with Ruben's book has a scoring instrument, which the program participants may use to conduct self-assessments, as a part of their final reports to the University Librarian (later Gaunt reiterated that such reports would be required of those who were funded to attend a leadership program).Inventory of leadership programs
Gasparotto presented an updated inventory of leadership programs, based on an earlier version developed by the previous Committee. It was a spreadsheet covering 35 programs in nine categories: administration, assessment, copyright, diversity, general, health sciences, law, leadership, and technology, with detailed information for each program. She commented that keeping track of various application deadlines might be a challenge.
Members commended Gasparotto for the comprehensiveness of the inventory. One comment was to make the spreadsheet sortable by cost. Suggestions were also made to remove grant programs (such as Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program) and programs for law librarians. Members also agreed to seek input from library faculty regarding their personal experience with the programs and information about additional programs. Gasparotto will add a new column on the spreadsheet to list the names of the RUL librarians who have attended a particular program.Survey of leadership training at peer institutions
Niessen surveyed websites of seven peers of RUL and he found:
In the brief discussion that followed, a question was raised about whether the UNC Chapel-Hill's website has a link to the TRLN (Triangle Research Library Network) Management Academy.Procedure
Transitioning to the issue of procedure, Niessen mentioned that Michigan and Wisconsin posted online their application forms for leadership programs. Boyle suggested that the RUL's internal application form ask two basic questions:
An applicant needs to get the internal application approved before sending out a formal application to the training program. Later Gaunt indicated that the internal application must have information about where the program takes place and what the fee is, but there is no need to put in the information about cost of airfare or hotel.
Tipton shared her ideas about the composition of a new committee that would be in charge of reviewing the internal applications: it would be a small group of two library faculty and one Cabinet member (with an alternate for each), as well as a representative from Library Human Resources administering the paperwork. The committee may meet quarterly to review applications; the alternate will be called in when a member is unavailable or excused.
Members thought Tipton's ideas were fine. Other suggestions came up, including: tenure is not required of the members of the review committee; applicants must have their supervisors sign off before submitting the application to the committee; members of the review committee are allowed to apply, but they will be excused from reviewing their own applications; the committee may be named the Leadership Education and Development (LEAD) Committee; to ensure the availability of funding, applicants of recurring, annual programs should apply early (near the beginning of the fiscal year), while the committee can meet on an ad hoc basis to review applications at least a month before the program's own application deadline.
To disseminate the information about the leadership programs, Gaunt suggested putting the inventory online under "Staff Resources", along with the explanations of competency areas (after obtaining permission from Brent Ruben). A reminder will be sent out to library faculty at the beginning of each year. Marilyn Wilt may check periodically to make sure all the programs on the list are alive. If a new program comes out, the Planning and Coordinating Committee can decide how to add it to the list.Criteria
After some discussion, members agreed on the following six criteria as guidelines to review the internal applications (not in any particular order):
Niessen will draft the application form with the six criteria and the description of the new LEAD Committee within a week. Gasparotto will update the inventory based on the comments received at the meeting. The proposal will be promptly taken to the library faculty for feedback in an online form. Establishing the new committee requires updating the Bylaws, which will be taken up by the RUL faculty meeting in November.
Gaunt will invite Richard Edwards, Interim Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs to speak at the RUL faculty meeting in November (after the meeting Gaunt confirmed Dr. Edwards has accepted the invitation). Another agenda item for the November meeting will be changes to the Bylaws.
For the open forum after the November faculty meeting, Gaunt suggested two possibilities: Susan Lawrence and Brent Ruben speaking about Rutgers Mission Assessment and Alignment Program (MAAP) and the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey, and Richard Novak speaking about changes in Continuous Education and the delivery of online education. She will follow up with the potential speakers.
In September a committee appointed by Governor Christie will report its recommendations about the proposed merger of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School with Rutgers, but the Governor may not release the report right away.
The Council of Presidents of Higher Education in New Jersey is planning to propose a bond issue for capital construction/renovation, which may appear on the ballot in the November election. A portion of the bond issue is for capital improvements at Rutgers. The library's wish list includes the unfinished floor at Dana, HVAC and roof replacement in Robeson, expansion of LSM to incorporate the Chemistry and Physics libraries and possibly the Math Library, renovations at Kilmer and Douglass, compact shelving in Art., and a learning commons located in the bound periodicals section in Alexander. However, it is unclear if the library can get everything on the wish list.
With regard to space, the University is funding a new building or renovation of an existing building for its Records Management program, which may free up some space in the Special Collections and University Archives as well as the Annex.
In the interest of time, the goal discussion was suspended until September. The Rules of Procedure Committee will visit the September meeting. Niessen reiterated that the draft documents about the leadership program will be sent out within a week.
The meeting adjourned at 11:37am.
Submitted by Tao Yang, Faculty Secretary