The meeting came to order at 9:34am.
The agenda was adopted.
Niessen submitted the strategic plan comments to Jeanne Boyle. The annual goals of the committee will be sorted out later.
The Research and Graduate Education Committee of the University Senate showed interest in taking on the issue of open access, even though the exact charge has not been formulated yet. Otto sits on this Senate committee and will keep us informed. The RUL Committee on Scholarly Communication will also discuss this new development.
Niessen reviewed the background of the LEAD (Leadership Education and Development) proposal and asked for feedback from Sun and Ren. If we make the LEAD committee a standing one right now, will the bylaws have to be changed again when the new committee encounters unforeseen issues? This was a major concern for Rules of Procedure, so they recommended the LEAD committee be an ad hoc group for the first two years (which requires no change to the bylaws) and then it could become a standing committee after a revision of the bylaws. Members accepted this recommendation and the LEAD proposal will be updated accordingly.
Rules of Procedure is proposing a bylaws change to add a new faculty unit called "Planning and Organizational Research" (POR). This is due to the need of accommodating a new faculty member, for the purpose of conducting the promotional review. Can the new faculty member be assigned to an existing unit? The existence of the POR as an operational unit and the presence of precedents were noted. How can a small unit conduct promotional review? According to University rules, it may combine with another unit or set up an ad hoc committee with members from outside. Will this work for the candidate, especially in terms of the social support needed to succeed? It was assured that the candidate was consulted in developing the proposal. The committee then agreed that the proposal should proceed to the faculty meeting in November.
Niessen briefly reviewed the document on new liaison roles that the committee developed last year. To move forward, he suggested that the committee should identify specific roles first and then contact appropriate Councils for agenda discussions.
Information literacy seems appropriate for a discussion with the User Services Council (USC), which has had a lot of discussion in this area. What new ideas can we recommend to USC? The issue of measurement was suggested. A relevant measurement is how many University courses are integrating library resources, through either library instruction sessions or links to library resources in the course management systems. Linking student learning objectives to library and tracking usages online are other measurements, but they are probably more difficult to achieve. The effectiveness of a comprehensive tutorial was briefly debated. Members agreed that collecting statistics on library instructions can demonstrate liaison roles and also the campus-wide impact of RUL. These numbers will be sorted by academic departments instead of by individual librarians, which will inform us of the strengths and gaps of library instruction. Anderson and Gasparotto will formulate a proposal that we can present to the USC.
The issues of scholarly communication and RUcore appear suitable for a discussion with the Library Resources Council (LRC). In this area, no precise idea was proposed, but three possible topics were suggested: creating a strategy for open access discussion (in light of the new development in the University Senate), matching community needs with library strengths, and speaking directly to teaching faculty. Niessen will talk to Tom Izbicki and the LRC co-chairs about these.
Gaunt also suggested that the two Councils may go through the document on new liaison roles and see what education programs they can sponsor to develop librarians' expertise. These education programs are primarily for librarians, but some of them can become road shows traveling to the academic departments. We should send to the Councils a list of programming ideas that they might consider sponsoring.
Niessen and Gaunt summarized the agenda for the November faculty meeting. It will be a business meeting; no forum is scheduled. Rules of Procedure will propose the bylaws change for creating the new faculty unit "Planning and Organizational Research". Niessen will present the document on the ad hoc LEAD committee -- the document will be updated and shared prior to the meeting. Interim Executive Vice President Richard Edwards will speak about his goals, the major issues on campus, and the roles of libraries; he is also prepared to answer questions. Sloan and Otto will give a de- briefing of the media panel. The reports of the University representatives will be distributed prior to the meeting.
Gaunt distributed two Dana library faculty job postings - the IJS Director and the Digital Humanities Librarian. Both positions have been converted from existing staff lines in Dana. The Digital Humanities Librarian will be based in Newark, but may provide system-wide leadership. RUL needs to make a case for both positions, but no great difficulties are expected.
The presidential search is ongoing. The next public forum will be held in November on Livingston campus. The job ad seems typical of presidential searches. What characteristics do we want to see from the candidates? Suggestions included: understanding the strategic importance of IT to the University, promoting access to information (particularly a preferential option for access on copyright issues), providing a strategic plan, bringing in more budgetary transparency, and having transparent and open communications.
The State of the Libraries program in November will provide a major update on the digital presence of the libraries. It will cover the big picture and the Web redesign in particular.
Gaunt attended the ARL annual meeting. The meeting had a focus on special collections; one interesting technique some libraries are employing is to link to special collections in relevant Wikipedia entries or create Wikipedia entries with links. UNC and NC State are developing new ways to determine how the acquisitions budget should be distributed. Patron driven acquisitions is the big thing right now. Digitization of special collections and copyright (particularly the HathiTrust lawsuit) were discussed. About licensing, ARL is developing language terms to help deal with vendor demands (such as prohibiting international ILL). To elevate the collective purchasing power, ARL sent out an RFP to vendors for university press e-books. Included in the RFP were principles for access to e-books; RUL will have the opportunity to opt in.
One question was raised about the "Above and Beyond" merit recognition awards that were given a number of years ago to library staff. Gaunt will ask Lila Fredenburg to investigate this issue.
Niessen summarized the progress made at the meeting. The proposal from Rules of Procedure to create a new faculty unit was reviewed. The committee agreed to tweak the LEAD committee document. The discussion on new liaison roles will begin, with a specific idea for USC and some general ideas for LRC, in addition to suggestions for educational programs for both councils. The agenda for November business meeting was set. Characteristics we look for in the future president were discussed.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35am.