STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes for March 7, 2003 Meeting

Rutgers University Libraries Faculty Meeting
March 7, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Teleconference Lecture Hall, Scholarly Communication Center, Alexander Library
College Avenue Campus

Meeting called to order at 9:35 a.m.

Agenda

1. The agenda was adopted.

2. The minutes were approved as submitted.

3. The following new faculty and guests were introduced:

4. Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business.

5. New Business

a. Draft Guidelines for Short Research Assignments - (R. Tipton, Chair, Research Leave Review Committee)

The Research Leave Review Committee reexamined the Short Research Assignment guidelines, and proposed changes to the document in order to clarify the roles of various parties in the process, as well as the responsibilities of the applicant. Specifically, statements were added that addressed the content of the final report and the ramifications if that report is not submitted. After this introduction to the revised document, the floor was opened for discussion.

Members of the faculty asked a few additional clarifying questions about where the final report of the short research assignment should be directed. It was decided that the report would be sent to the University Librarian. The Human Resources office would then send copies to the Unit Director/Associate University Librarian, as well as the chairs of the Research Leave Review Committee and the Scholarly and Professional Activities Committee.

The faculty approved the revised Short Research Assignment guidelines, with the minor clarifying changes noted above to be made to the final version of the document.

b. Draft Guidelines for Reading Committees - (M. Fetzer, Chair, Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (PPAAC))

Background

The University allows departments to choose whether or not they will have reading committees, and whether the reading committee report will be attached to the candidate's narrative. These decisions are left to the individual units. It is assumed, however, that units will normally opt to have reading committees; therefore, at the request of the Coordinating Committee, PPAAC has developed a document entitled "Draft Guidelines for the Evaluation of Scholarship for Reading Committees and Others Involved in the Reappointment/Promotion Process."

The term guidelines should be stressed in this context. Since the reading committee is to evaluate the scholarship of a candidate in all of its manifestations, the questions in this document are suggested, and are not intended to be comprehensive. As they are bulleted, no rank order is implied. Not all questions would be applicable to every candidate, rather, the questions are offered as suggestions.

After this brief background, the floor was opened for discussion.

Several faculty members stressed need for reading committee reports to be evaluative and analytical rather than descriptive. While each reading committee will have its own voice, careful objectivity should be a hallmark of the report

The faculty recommended a few changes in wording, including the following:

It was stated that the work of reading committees might be particularly useful in the evaluation of foreign language materials. It was also noted that in the cases of collaborative effort, it might be difficult to quantify the percentage of participation of the candidate. It was noted that the candidate could use the narrative to explicate his/her contribution. Indeed, candidates should use the Career Development Record as an opportunity to contextualize their scholarship. If questions remain, the members of the reading committee can seek clarification.

A discussion ensued about who is responsible for some of the work implied by the questions contained in the document. Should members of the reading committee be responsible for ascertaining the answers to questions that would help evaluate the candidate's work, or is it the responsibility of the candidate to show the impact of his/her work to the reading committee? It was proposed that responsibility rests ultimately with the candidate, but that reading committee members might supplement this effort through their committee work.

It was suggested that the list of questions might be usefully grouped into three broad categories reflecting the role of scholarship. These categories are: innovation, context, and impact.

At the end of the discussion, it was decided that the document would be returned to PPAAC for the proposed changes and additional reconsideration.

6. Report of the University Librarian (M. Gaunt)

7. Report of the Faculty Coordinator - (L. Langschied)

A summation of the Coordinating Committee's yearly activities will be given at the June 2003 faculty meeting. The Coordinating Committee has charged PPAAC, in particular, with many tasks this year. L. Langschied also encouraged faculty members to consider standing for positions in the annual faculty election.

8. Communications

There were no communications.

9. Report of Members Serving on University Bodies

Campus Faculty Council Representatives
New Brunswick Faculty Council Representative J. Cassel

10. Reports of Standing Committees

There was no further reports or discussion.

11. The business meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sara Harrington
RUL Faculty Secretary

Attendees:

The following summary is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive.

Open Meeting Summary
D21 Project Update, Francoise Puniello, Associate Director, New Brunswick Libraries

Douglass Library was founded in 1918 and evolved from a stand-alone college library, to an undergraduate library, to a library which today has collection responsibilities in two subject areas: women's and gender studies and the performing arts. The Library still maintains a commitment to serving undergraduates. Faculty, students, and librarians developed the concept document for D21: The Douglass Library for the 21st Century. The renovation of the Douglass Library is a partnership between the Libraries, Douglass College, and Mason Gross School of the Arts.

Eventually, as Phases II and III are constructed, the Douglass Library will have a women's and gender studies resource room, the Margery Somers Foster Center (a digital women's archive), an information handling laboratory, art galleries, graduate carrels, group study spaces, and new staff work areas. The Laurie Music Library will develop into a performing arts library with seminar rooms, more space for collections, graduate carrels, a new multimedia department, and a specialized computer laboratory designated for the performing arts.

The first phase of the renovation project, begun in March 2003 at a cost of $4.3 million, was funded by higher education and renewal money. Most of this money will be spent on the renovation of the infrastructure, including the new lobby with ADA accessible elevator and rotunda, information commons, the beginning of the Margery Somers Foster Center in the mezzanine, and a lobby with galleries for art exhibitions. The information commons will include both a RUCS workspace and library computers; wireless technology will be used throughout the commons. The D21 website, located at http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/douglass/D21.htm, explains the project and planned renovations in further detail, and includes details on current renovation activities.

The following session summary is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive.

Open Session Summary
Moving Image Collections (MIC)
Grace Agnew, Associate University Librarian for Digital Library Systems

The Moving Image Collections project (MIC) (pronounced MIKE), is a grant funded project intended to open a window to the worlds of moving image collections, and enhance both access to, and preservation of, these collections. MIC will provide a research resource for the moving image community, as a well as a portal for integrating moving images into 21st century learning. Indeed, the mission of MIC is to integrate moving images into the educational mainstream, recognizing that what society uses it values, and what it values, it preserves.

A brief background of the project is as follows: in 1999 the National Film Preservation Board and the Association of Moving Image Archivists hired G. Agnew as a consultant to design a union catalogue. In 2002, the National Science Foundation awarded a grant to Rutgers University, Georgia Tech, and the University of Washington to create MIC, which is intended to 'go live' in 2004.

MIC will be comprised of a union catalogue, an organizational directory database, and a cataloging utility. MIC will also provide for educational and outreach services. Currently, cataloging utility development and the revision of data elements is underway. One of the challenges for this project is to reach across the entire spectrum of moving image collections, while maintaining a standard schema for the union catalog. MIC will create its own core registry and map to multiple schemas. Repositories will contribute to an online searchable archive directory of moving image repositories. It is hoped that multiple entry points and a flexible metadata design will provide for greater participation by the moving image community.

For further information, visit the MIC homepage at http://gondolin.rutgers.edu/MIC



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/rul_faculty/minutes/rulfac_03-03-07.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

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