The agenda was adopted.
As a follow-up to the decisions made at previous meetings, Niessen will send out the revised faculty travel policy and sabbatical review policy. The issue about the roles of campus representatives on library committees came up; to prepare for the discussion, Gasparotto volunteered to draft a document describing these roles.
The open access initiative is in the "dog and pony show" phase. Otto and L. Mullen have given presentations on the proposed OA policy to the Newark Faculty Council and to Camden faculty. They will then go to the SEBS Chairs Council, the NBFC, the Dean's Council, and the Graduate School program directors in New Brunswick. These presentations will prepare the ground for implementing the OA policy and may contribute to passing the policy in the Senate. Members recommended letting the library faculty know the target audiences for these presentations (with the presentation slides attached). Besides the route through the Senate, there may be other ways to get the OA policy adopted at Rutgers.
Otto concluded that the most important thing right now is the library faculty deposit pilot project. She asked that library faculty deposit at least one article in RUcore and report any feedback online. Some changes have already been suggested, such as more clearly indicating the turnaround time of depositing articles and notifying the author when the article is available in RUcore. Niessen added that the User Services Application Working Group is analyzing the feedback received.
Niessen reviewed the progress on this annual goal: a list of technology-related groups was compiled and analyzed. Grace Agnew visited the committee and gave an informative presentation. The biggest issue is digital user services, including the website and the link resolver. How should we proceed from here? Seeing more minutes from the Web Board may be one concrete recommendation (Gaunt later reiterated that many people are interested in the minutes of committees like the Web Board, so their minutes need to be sent to RUL_everyone and posted on the staff page under the appropriate AUL).
Gaunt described three projects on the horizon that have high priorities: implementing OLE, dealing with the issue that RWJ and RUL are using different link resolvers post-merger, and implementing the discovery layer. She is concerned whether there are enough people to work on these upcoming projects. The documents distributed by Boyle prior to the meeting provide various models for digital project workflow and may help us identify who should be involved in these projects.
Deodato suggested developing a technology plan to complement the strategic plan. The technology plan will specify how the goals in the strategic plan can be accomplished, including information about what human and financial resources are needed and the timeline. Other members thought this will be helpful and both Melissa Just and Grace Agnew need to be involved. Members also discussed the benefits of an overall plan vs. a piecemeal approach as well as the advantages of a three-year plan that is rolling forward.
Deodato and Niessen will draft a proposal to the Cabinet, which will refer to the technology- related goals in the strategic plan and recommend relevant AULs compose a task force to come up with the technology plan for implementing the goals, with estimated requirements in personnel, finances, and timeline. The draft proposal will be sent to the Committee for review and submission to Cabinet at least two days before its May 8 meeting.
Gaunt has called a special faculty meeting on May 11 to discuss the procedures of NTT appointment, reappointment, and promotion. Karen Stubaus (Associate VP for Academic Affairs) will come to the meeting to discuss the issue and answer questions. This meeting is the beginning of the process to come up with the procedures. The Planning and Coordinating Committee will coordinate faculty input in the process and Gaunt asked members to read the documents she had distributed. A Working Group composed of NTT librarians will be created for the purposes of providing collective input to the Committee. The procedures have to be approved by the University and negotiated with the faculty union.
Some comments and questions came up in the discussion, including:
Gaunt then asked what questions to ask Karen Stubaus at the May meeting. The suggestions are:
The RUL has signed an agreement with the Beth Mardutho Syriac Institute in Piscataway to collaborate on resource sharing and other areas of mutual interest and benefit. One of these areas is the digitization of its library collection for RUcore. A part of the reciprocity is that Beth Mardutho staff members will be given borrowing privileges at the library.
Gaunt invited Dr. Robert Barchi, the new president, to visit the library after he takes office when she greeted him at a reception following the recent Board of Governors meeting. She noted that he won't start until September.
Gaunt has been in contact with the University Librarian of the South China University of Technology, an institution Rutgers will be partnering with for a new campus in China. She will go to China for a conference and hope to meet with her SCUT counterpart on her trip.
Niessen summarized the outcomes of the meeting. Gasparotto will draft a document listing the responsibilities of campus representatives on library committees. Niessen and Deodato will work on the first draft of a proposal to the Cabinet on the process of creating a technology plan to implement the goals in the new strategic plan. Niessen will also draft talking points for the May 11 faculty meeting.
Mark Winston will attend the May meeting for a discussion of faculty lines, with regard to target of opportunity hires and the conversion of staff lines to faculty lines. We will revisit the mentoring program. An update from ILIAC is also possible. NTT appointment and promotion procedures will be on the agenda.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25am.
Submitted by Tao Yang, Faculty Secretary.