Rutgers University Libraries Faculty Meeting
Teleconference Lecture Hall, Scholarly Communication Center, Alexander Library
Friday, June 13, 2003, 9:15 a.m.
Draft minutes submitted June 25, 2003; Approved November 14, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 9:29 a.m.
1. The agenda was adopted.
2. The minutes March 7, 2003 faculty meeting were approved.
3. The following new faculty and guests were introduced:
Angel Falcon, Intern/Resident, New Brunswick Libraries
Karen Hartman, Social Sciences Librarian, New Brunswick Libraries
4. There was no unfinished business.
5. New Business
a. Proposed amendments to Bylaws, Section V, Number 9, "Nominations, Appointments, and Elections" (T. Haynes, Chair, Rules of Procedure Committee)
The bylaws were re-examined because some confusion existed about how to proceed in the case of a committee vacancy. The proposed wording clarifies that the committee shall decide if the vacancy should be filled. If the committee decides to fill a vacancy, the Human Resources office will inform the committee of the runner-up candidate in the most recent election. If this is not possible, the Coordinating Committee will elect a new member. It is not mandatory to fill a committee vacancy if the committee does not wish to do so. The faculty approved the changes to the Bylaws.
b. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Librarianship (M. Fetzer, Chair, Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee)
The proposed guidelines were developed at the request of the Coordinating Committee. As with the other 'guidelines' documents developed by PPAAC, the proposed guidelines offer a place to begin discussions, and are therefore subject to revision. The composition of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Librarianship began in the Councils. PPAAC tweaked the wording of the document without changing its intent, and provided a narrative introduction. The document was approved by the Coordinating Committee, and was then sent to RUL_EVERYONE for comment. After this brief introduction, the floor was opened for discussion.
Faculty members offered a few changes of wording in order to clarify the intent of the guidelines.
In the "General" section, page 2, second bullet: At the end of the phrase "willingness to undertake additional professional duties as needed, to help carry out the mission and goals of the Libraries" remove the phrase "the profession, the University at large," since good citizenship characteristics should apply to the local context as well as to exterior responsibilities.
In the introduction, in order to clarify what is implied, add after the word "comprehensive," "Not every question will be applicable to every specific candidate."
In the Technical Services section, change the phrase "Technical and Automated Services" to "the Unit."
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Librarianship in the Reappointment/Promotion Process were approved as amended. The guidelines will function as an appendix to the Libraries' tenure/promotion documentation.
6. Report of the University Librarian (M. Gaunt)
The Vagelos Report recommended the establishment of a committee on IT and Libraries. M. Gaunt and President Altenkirch of NJIT will co-chair this committee. While the committee charge has not yet been drafted, it is hoped that it will be an open charge rather than being more narrowly defined.
Essentially, in the context of the Vagelos report, three options exist for Libraries/IT functions:
M. Gaunt will keep the faculty posted on how the charge will be drawn up, and on the size and membership of the committee. She noted that in order to examine some issues specific to either IT or the Libraries, the committee might break into two separate subcommittees. Finally, it was noted that President McCormick's letters to the Rutgers community on the status of the Proposal to Restructure Higher Education in New Jersey can be found at: http://www.president.rutgers.edu/letters.shtml
The budget situation remains in flux. The Libraries likely will not know the final figures until August at the earliest. In order to model potential scenarios, the Cabinet is currently planning for a 2.5% cut, divided as follows:
Below the line: $50,000 cut
Staff: $150,000 cut
Collections: $400,000 cut
The potential cuts to the collections budget are of serious concern, given the cost of serials inflation and other issues. The staff cuts will likely include the loss of two faculty lines. Additionally, RUL will reexamine the position descriptions of the NBL Director and the Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services. Dr. Seneca is aware of the severity of the situation. RUL, for its part, must think carefully and consider whether the budget problems will likely be a one-year or a longer-term issue. M. Gaunt will keep the faculty apprised of developments.
One year remains in the University's capital campaign. The Libraries set a goal of $10.25 million. Thus far, $10.5 million has been pledged, and $9.2 million has been received. Faculty and staff are encouraged to consider supporting the ongoing faculty and staff capital campaign.
NBL Director Position
M. Gaunt stated that a search committee for the position has been established, and a search firm has been hired. The firm will vet recommendations and develop a tiered list of candidates.
7. Report of the Faculty Coordinator (L. Langschied)
L. Langschied thanked M. Gaunt, the members of the Coordinating Committee, and the staff of the Human Resources office for their hard work during the past academic year. She also commended those who stood for election during the recent faculty election process.
During the 2002-2003 academic year, the Coordinating Committee tended to so-called 'housekeeping details,' including setting a process for the posting of Coordinating Committee and Faculty Meeting minutes in a more expeditious manner, facilitating the sharing of meeting agendas within the organization, and the re-establishment of the RUL Faculty listserv. The Coordinating Committee also spent time discussing the budget situation, as well as the Vagelos report.
The Committee also examined documents developed in other committees, including:
The Short Research Assignment Guidelines (Research Leave Review Committee)
Guidelines for the Definition of Refereed Journals (Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee)
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Librarianship (Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee)
DLI Planning Page (Planning Committee)
M. Gaunt noted that RUL faculty and staff are encouraged to examine the University's Draft Proposed University Copyright Policy, which can be found by clicking on the copyright icon in the upper right hand corner of the Libraries' home page. The Committee that developed the draft policy is soliciting feedback from members of the University community.
9. Report of Members Serving on University Bodies
Reports were sent out via email listserv. The University Senate continues to consider the implications of the Vagelos report. Additionally, an undergraduate teaching conference, chaired by Professor Martin Gliserman of the English Department, will take place in October. If anyone has ideas for breakout sessions, they should contact Dr. Gliserman. As a result of University devolution, the Newark Faculty Council has been discussing the possibility of having a separate PRC for the Newark Campus. The Council asked its incoming chair to draft a concrete proposal regarding the issue.
10. Reports of Standing Committees
The reports were distributed via email listserv. There were no further reports or questions.
11. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Special recognition was afforded to Dr. Samson Soong for his years of quality service to the Libraries and the University community. He will be missed, and the faculty and staff offer their best wishes as Samson begins his new position as University Librarian at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
|Susan Beck||Sara Harrington|
|Ruth Bogan||Karen Hartman|
|Natalie Borisovets||Theo Haynes|
|Jeanne Boyle||Triveni Kuchi|
|Ellen Calhoun||Linda Langschied|
|Jerris Cassel||Patricia Libutti|
|Tim Corlis||Barry Lipinski|
|Kayo Denda||Rhonda Marker|
|Angel Falcon||Mary Page|
|Mary Fetzer||Pat Piermatti|
|Tom Frusciano||Wen Hua Ren|
|Judy Gardner||Bob Sewell|
|Rebecca Gardner||Samson Soong|
|Marianne Gaunt||Eileen Stec|
|Tom Glynn||Roberta Tipton|
|Myoung Chung Wilson|
Open Session Summary:
The following open session summary is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive.
Establishing Quality Indicators for RUL
Brent Ruben, Professor and Executive Director, Center for Organizational Development and Leadership
Marianne Gaunt, University Librarian
Cabinet has been examining the issue of quality indicators so that RUL can be more fully accountable to our user community (broadly conceived). We wish to explain what we do clearly, as well as explain how we measure excellence. It is a significant challenge to apply qualitative and quantitative measures to the work that we do. Specifically, these measures must be predictive in nature, for only then will they be of strategic utility.
The use of quality indicators is most highly developed in the business world. In the academic world, measures of quality have been appropriately based on academic values. However, academe has sometimes neglected to indicate how it uses such measures to shape future activities and services.
Several emerging concerns characterize the development of quality measures in academe.
Several key questions and directions are evident from the concerns listed above. Measurements should clarify institutional purpose, directions, and priorities, while at the same time taking into account the influence of both internal and external stakeholders. Additionally, measures must monitor progress, be predictive in nature, permit comparisons, be broadly accessible, satisfy internal and external reporting requirements, and engage the campus community in determining what to measure, why to measure it, and what to do with the results.
A framework for excellence in higher education might thus consider:
In order to develop measures, it is necessary to move carefully through a series of questions that consider the mission of the institution, its important programs and services, its user community, the concerns of faculty and staff, and its resources. The difficulty remains articulating how exactly to measure these priorities in ways that provide useful feedback.
As just one example of potential measures, Cabinet has posited that one of RUL's major programs and services might be conceived of as:
Support for University Research and Instructional Programs
One subsection of this major program might be:
Operational Infrastructure and Computer Equipment
The measurement of this subcategory might develop thus:
Measure: Number of workstations available
Method: Annual count
It is important to underscore that this process is ongoing, and that RUL must discuss the process of focusing on measures of excellence broadly within the Libraries by devising excellence indicators with input from across the Libraries. RUL will then validate the criteria with appropriate stakeholders and begin measurements to establish benchmarks. Finally, it will be necessary to develop targets. The assessment committee may help to roll out this process. The feedback and input of all is invited and encouraged throughout the process of the development of these measures.
RUL Faculty Secretary