[Submitted February 11, 2004]
1. The agenda was adopted as submitted.
2. The minutes of the June 13 Faculty Meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Introduction of new faculty and guests:
a. Bill Hemmig, Douglass Library
b. Constance Finley SMLR Library (invited faculty)
4. There was no unfinished business.
5. New Business
a. Proposed Amendments to Bylaws: Section V. Nominations, appointments and Elections, and Section VII. Statutory Committees, Standing Committees R. Womack, Chair, explained that it has been discovered that the Bylaws specify that the faculty should be electing three separate representatives to the Coordinating Committee representing the three campuses in a separate election, but this has not been done routinely. Rules of Procedure and Coordinating Committees recommended the following:
Campus-level representation is important to ensure, but additional elections are cumbersome and would add to the difficulties of finding faculty members to fill RUL positions. As long as the duties of the campus representative are made clear (as a liaison to the entire geographic campus), it should be sufficient to have the University Librarian appoint a campus representative, whether from among existing Coordinating Committee members, or as a new member to the committee.
Discussion of the change ensued. Several people felt it was important that faculty members elect their own representatives rather than having them appointed. The difficulties of holding a separate election, finding people to run, and the size of the Coordinating Committee were raised.
K. Mulcahy introduced the following motion: in the spirit of devolution, we proposed that the faculty on each campus choose a representative in an election to be run by the campus.
N. Borisovets added a friendly amendment: the Rules of Procedure Committee will be informed 3 weeks beforehand.
Discussion of the motion ensued. The problem of timing was raised, as committee chairs will have to be elected before this separate election takes place. Consensus on the motion was reached, and the Rules of Procedure Committee was charged with crafting language for the Bylaws with the intention of letting each campus choose its own representative, designating a timeline, but allowing each campus to choose its procedure.
A vote was taken, and the motion passed.
b. Digital Collection Project Proposal Application - Collection Development Management Criteria Questionnaire
R. Sewell, AUL for Collection Development and Management introduced this new document currently under development for open discussion. In the past, selection of digital projects has been unsytematic. With limited resources, we must ensure that the projects that the Libraries support are of high quality, useful, and sustainable. The application considers traditional collection development and management criteria, as well as issues related to the internet. The committee decided to focus on digital collections, not projects - projects, like tutorials or research guides need to have separate criteria. Digital collections refer to major projects reformatting analog materials or working with items that are born digital. The application will eventually be like a grant proposal, which will be evaluated by a committee. Part III (Technical Support) is current being prepared by the Digital Architecture and Infrastructure Working Group and the Data Architecture Working Group. In answer to a request for examples of the type of projects that would fulfill the criteria, R. Sewell mentioned the Roman Coins Database and the New Jersey Environmental Database.
Discussion ensued over who will work on these projects, where will the work take place, what happens if a project is rejected by the committee, what happens if a project comes with outside funding, how this application differs from an SCC application, and what is the review cycle. M. Gaunt clarified that RUL will also come up with priorities for digitization projects. L. Langschied clarified that all projects will have to meet the standards for the Rutgers Digital Library, as such as metadata, resolution, interoperability, etc. There was discussion of the digitization of brittle materials, and the relationship of RUL projects to outside projects.
6. Report of the University Librarian.
M. Gaunt reported from ARL meeting on 1) an effort to consider the digitization of historical government publications; and 2) ARL and AAUP (Association of University Presses) have declared 2004 the year of the university press, in order to foster collaboration between libraries and universities presses, to raise the profile of university presses, and demonstrate the importance of publishing work without commercial value.
M. Gaunt will have the first planning meeting with Dr. Furmanski the first week in December. At the State of the Libraries meeting, Karen Kavenagh, AUL for Administrative Services, spoke about the new university budget process based on the all- funds approach. She noted that the all-funds approach will not include gifts or endowments, but will include other funds available to units, such as indirect costs from grants. This change will not go into effect until next year.
M. Gaunt has been appointed to the new Information Technology University-Wide Advisory Committee, which will focus on administrative computing and the role of RUCS. She also met with CSPAD (university-wide committee on standards and priorities in academic development which looks at external reviews and is knowledgeable about the universities' most outstanding programs/departments). The committee discussed library collections and budgets, the need for new outlets for scholarly publishing, and communications. Committee members felt that the best way to communicate with faculty members was through short, frequent, electronic messages from people whom they know. M. Gaunt reported that the VALE statistics and measurement session on November 13 was valuable.
Cabinet reviewed a number of proposals for projects using Academic Excellence Funds, and chose three which were submitted November 14.
M. Gaunt noted that she hopes future projects will build the New Jersey Digital Highway or the Rutgers Digital Library.
7. Report of the Faculty Coordinator. R. Marker thanked the Rules of Procedure Committee for work on the Bylaws, and noted she has set up a list serve for the Coordinating Committee to help conduct business outside of monthly meetings. She thanked all faculty committee and council members.
8. Communications: None.
9. Report of Members Serving on University Bodies: All have been submitted electronically.
10. Standing Committees: No additions.
11. M. Gaunt adjourned the Business Meeting at 11:00
"Restructuring of the Public Research Universities and Devolution:" Status Report and Discussion - M. Gaunt
1. Devolution: Devolution refers to returning authority to individual campuses and provosts and has already been happening. Dr. Furmanski has said that it is important for libraries to remain system-wide and for campus library directors to continue to report to the University Librarian
2. Restructuring: In response to the Vagelos Report, the Governor set up the Strategic Plan Implementation Committee. In turn, three umbrella committees have been set up to write White Papers to design the structure of the new system.
These committees are planning three universities reporting to one Chancellor. In addition, four working groups are looking at system-wide issues.
There are also questions over whether the state legislature will approve the floating of a bond issue. The proposed two billion dollar bond issue is for capacity-building for higher education, the establishment of new research centers, and job-force training, rather than specifically for restructuring the state universities.
It is very possible that the libraries will remain a system that includes Rutgers, NJIT, and UMDNJ, with a central office and three regional directors. This change will require restructuring and redundancies may become apparent. The immediate needs for funding the new system will be for a new catalog, the extension of electronic databases and cooperative agreements to everyone, and an examination of the technical infrastructure.
On the Rutgers web site, President McCormick has set up opportunities for input. (http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/restructure/) There is nothing in the IT/Libraries Report about faculty status for librarians, in anticipation of the Human Resources committee's report. It is unlikely that Rutgers librarians would lose faculty status, but others may be brought in.
Issues from the campus reports:
Conclusion: Although we are not sure if restructuring will occur, we must still plan. We will probably know a lot more in January and February. We will probably know about the Chancellor's office sooner than about the finances.
Questions: In answer to a question, M. Gaunt said that the Vagelos Report does not address the arts and humanities, just business and health. One of the basic aims of the report was how to attract scientists and researchers to New Jersey. The campus reports call for strong arts and humanities programs; the Central report specifically calls for not taking money from the arts to support restructuring. Vagelos' original charge from the governor was to improve health education in New Jersey, but he felt that higher education in the state had to be restructured in order to do so.
In answer to a question about the influence of the press, M. Gaunt replied that many articles in the Star Ledger seemed to be questioning the merger. The university will be spearheading a major advocacy campaign for public support, as people do not necessarily understand the tie-in between the university and the state economy.
Someone commented on the complexities of three universities, especially for electronic resources. We will have to have a huge influx of money for new licensing agreements. There is already a desire for access to UMDNJ's databases because of the need to collaborate.
In answer to a comment over some library activities being done better locally, it was noted that some things were already being done locally, while remaining one system. In medical libraries, some information will have to be delivered immediately. Law libraries will still remain outside of the system.
There was a comment on why Vagelos is bringing up such an expensive proposal in a time of budget crisis. M. Gaunt commented that many of the goals could be achieved through better funding, rather than through restructuring, but Pres. McCormick feels that great universities all have medical schools. There was discussion over whether Robert Wood Johnson Hospital could join the New Brunswick campus.
In answer to a question over Camden's smaller size and greater distance, G. Golden commented that the Stratford Osteopathic School was not an MD program, and many Rutgers faculty members did not support it. Camden may start a separate MD program.
The Open Meeting concluded at 12:30 p.m.