STAFF RESOURCES

Committee of the Whole Meeting on the Subject of Libraries Reorganization

September 22, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
Kilmer Library Room 010

Attendees: G. Agnew, J. Boyle, E. Calhoun, J. Cassel, H. Dess, M. Fetzer, C. Finlay, R. Gardner, M. Gaunt, B. Golon, S. Harrington (recorder), K. Hartman, M. Joseph, M. Kesselman, T. Kuchi, E. Leister, M.-L. Lo, R. Marker, L. Mullen, L. Mullins, J. Niessen, M. Page, P. Page, F. Puniello, R. Sewell, J. Sloan, E. Stec, L. Sun, F. Tehrani, R. Tipton, M. Weber, L. Weiner, R. Womack, C. Wu
Via Teleconference (Douglass): K. Denda, J. Shepard
Via Teleconference (Newark): K.-N. Au,
Via Teleconference (Camden): V. Bowman, T. Haynes, J. Still

Initial Discussion

The group met today to discuss a variety of issues related to the Libraries' reorganization. Among these issues: does the faculty structure need to change as a result of the Libraries' administrative reorganization? Does the graphic representation of the potential faculty structure that was distributed represent what was shared in the various reorganization meetings? Can we arrive at a proposal that can be voted on in a RUL Faculty Meeting?

It was noted that the faculty and the administration have two different but complementary structures. How much of the structure should exist in the faculty bylaws-do we want to 'tweak' the current structure or embark on more significant change? Does the faculty structure respond to the way we work and the way we will work, as embodied in the strategic plan? Do we want to streamline operations?

Faculty members offered initial input before the structured feedback session, as follows:

How can we facilitate flexible, grassroots R&D? In order to be flexible, an organization needs to empower the lowest level possible. We as faculty members are looking for inclusivity, and areas in the structure for people to be involved and engaged in the organization. Our faculty structure and library administration need to be open and transparent, since the entire profession is dedicated to information sharing. At the same time, the structure needs to be able to work with, support, and influence the University administration

We have to think about what we want the reorganized structure to do for RUL and the faculty and staff. Each person in the organization has to be able to locate him/herself in an organizational chart. Any chart must reflect all three campuses and communication(s) among all three campuses. As a result, RUL has to deal with issues such as those surrounding Librarian Vs and other non- tenure track faculty personnel. It was noted, however, that the structure of the faculty is not the same thing as the library organization chart. The faculty govern faculty matters and personnel issues.

Presentation

A presentation by R. Tipton and J. Sloan followed this initial discussion. They offered thanks to the University Librarian M. Gaunt for encouraging this process to move forward, as well as to L. Mullins, M. Weber, S. McDonald, J. Fultz, C. Houser, J. Morrow, L. Friday, and R. Sandler. R. Tipton and J. Sloan talked to over 60 people in one and a half months, and this presentation reflects what they heard.

The most frequently mentioned issues were:

Potential solutions:

Structured Feedback

The group then engaged in an exercise to gather structured feedback on reorganization issues.

Note:
I have divided the feedback provided into four main categories:
Councils/Library Board/Cabinet Planning Committee Issues
Communication Issues
Faculty Governance Issues
Other Issues

Under these categories, the comments are listed as they were recorded.

COUNCILS / LIBRARY BOARD / CABINET / PLANNING COMMITTEE ISSUES

COMMUNICATION ISSUES

FACULTY GOVERNANCE

OTHER







 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/lib_fac/fac_reorg_2006/rul_06-09-22.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2017, Rutgers University Libraries