Friday, June 7, 2002, 9:15 a.m.
Teleconference/Lecture Hall, Scholarly Communication Center, Alexander Library,
College Avenue Campus
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m.
1. The agenda was adopted as submitted.
2. The minutes of the March 8, 2002 faculty meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Introduction of new faculty and guests
The following new faculty members were introduced and welcomed: Grace Agnew, Associate University Librarian for Digital Library Systems Ed Berger, Head of Research Services, Associate Director, Institute of Jazz Studies
The following new faculty member, although not present, was introduced: Vivian Thiele, Project Archivist, Special Collections and University Archives
4. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
5. New Business
a. Procedures for Filling Open or Newly Created Library Faculty Positions (M. Fetzer, Chair, Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee) The "Procedures…" document is nine years old. Most changes currently under consideration were proposed during the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and were reviewed by the Coordinating Committee during the 2001-2002 academic year. The document comes to the faculty for approval, but because it is a procedural document, it does not need to go outside the Libraries for approval. The document is intended to give guidance to search committee chairs and members.
The floor was opened for discussion on the document. Faculty members made a number of wording suggestions, and a few questions about the language used in the document were answered. At the end of the discussion, the document "Procedures for Filling Open or Newly Created Library Faculty Positions" was accepted as amended.
b. Report of the Planning Committee (A. Tallau, Chair) This report from the Planning Committee is based on the document "A New Framework for RUL based on the DLI." The "New Framework" document takes the Libraries major functions and attempts to organize them from a user-centered perspective. The report makes an attempt to set forth where the Planning Committee believes the priorities of the Libraries should be in the next three to five years, in order to make progress towards the goals outlined in the Digital Library Initiative. The faculty is being asked to vote on the resolutions listed on page 3 of the report.
Firstly, faculty members expressed some confusion over the differentiation between new, ongoing and future designations of tasks and activities in the "New Framework" document.
A long, intensive discussion on the Planning Committee report followed. Several key issues emerged. While the priorities listed in the report were recognized as important, it was proposed that the report should explicitly address other areas that are equally crucial in the current library environment. These areas include, but are not limited to, scholarly communications, the promotion and effective implementation of the technological infrastructure necessary for a digital library, collection development, information literacy and fundraising issues. In short, all priorities must be stated on equal footing.
It was also noted that some of the resolutions listed in the report, such as retrospective conversion, are being examined and worked on currently.
Planning Committee members noted that the resolutions were intended to be concrete priorities, or action items, for the Libraries to complete. Nevertheless, it was posited that it might be useful to reexamine what the document is intended to help the Libraries accomplish.
It was stated that the inclusion of broader issues such as scholarly communications and a technological infrastructure might allow the report to function as a guiding document over the next few years not only for the Libraries. Indeed, the report might encourage the Libraries to function as a University leader in scholarly communication, as well as other areas.
At the end of the discussion, a motion that the document be returned to the Planning Committee for further consideration was approved.
6. Report of the University Librarian (M. Gaunt)
The faculty elections have been completed, and the results were announced electronically. Appointments to committees have also been completed. Committee members taking office on July 1, 2002 should elect chairs as soon as possible so that business can begin on July 1.
Middle States Accreditation Review
The University is engaged in a five-year Periodic Review, chaired by Dean Barry Qualls. The intent is to address the recommendations made in the 1998 reaccredidation review report and give an update as to the progress made in the last five years.
The budget situation remains largely static. A current question is whether or not the state will take back early retirement lines. If the Libraries wishes to hire any personnel it must ask for an exemption for mission-critical areas, and come up with the salary dollars that will allow the Libraries to hire on those lines. The tuition increase is as yet unknown. Governor McGreevey has indicated that he does not want universities to institute double-digit tuition increases. Therefore, the University may wish to keep positions vacant in order to make up for budget shortfalls, particularly since the corporate tax is unlikely to produce previously anticipated revenues. Much depends on the state budget, the full ramifications of which will not be known until the spring. Hence, deans must maintain maximum flexibility.
Association of Research Libraries Spring Meeting
A presentation on fundraising and recruitment was given at the ARL meeting in May. One presentation focused on the demographics of gift giving, and how the differing expectations of particular generations were likely to affect fundraising efforts. Understanding these differences may help the Libraries formulate appeals targeted at specific groups. The Copyright Working Group is now a Copyright Committee. The Scholarly Communication Group is focusing on issues of open access. ARL believes that the development of institutional repositories may provide a viable alternative to commercial publication and serve as an important direction in higher education. The challenge will be encouraging faculty to contribute scholarship and teaching tools to the repository. Many issues, such as who would retain copyright, need to be addressed.
Friends of the Libraries
The Rutgers University Friends of the Libraries recently enjoyed a wonderful trip to Washington, D.C., including a tour of the Kreeger Museum. Such trips provide opportunities to cultivate supporters and those interested in libraries.
7. Report of the Faculty Coordinator (L. Langschied for M. Wilson)
Since the last faculty meeting the Coordinating Committee met monthly and addressed the following issues:
The New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution congratulating the Scholarly Communications Committee for the success of the recent conference on scholarly communication.
9. Report of Members Serving on University Bodies
University Senators / Campus Faculty Council Representatives
The University has instituted a 7 day drop/8 day add period for courses, and is considering the institution of "minus" grades. Additionally, in a return to best practices in teaching, the University will report raw and mean evaluation scores to campus faculty council representatives.
10. Reports of Standing Committees
Faculty election results were announced electronically. The reports of committee chairs were distributed electronically prior to the faculty meeting. There were no questions on these reports.
11. The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 a.m.
The Rutgers University Libraries would like to recognize and thank four retiring faculty members:
The Libraries have been enriched by the contributions and service of these individuals, as has the life of the entire University. The faculty and staff of the Libraries share with all four of you our appreciation and our best wishes for a happy and productive retirement.
RUL Faculty Secretary