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:

• Communication
• Faculty are anxious about tech support for new initiatives. RUL needs to clarify the levels of support and make that support uniform across the system.
• Faculty do not have a common understanding of how decisions are made, how reporting lines are arranged, and what faculty self-governance is.
• There are too many Councils and their work may overlap.

Potential solutions:

• Re-establish faculty interest groups that discuss issues cross-campuses.
• Establish a faculty discussion or caucus.
• Change the faculty meeting venue.
• Get faculty concerns onto existing meeting agendas.
• If one cannot speak for oneself, communicate concerns to an elected or appointed representativs.
• Reduce the number of Councils, perhaps merge some Councils.
• Move the discussion of controversial issues to a single Library Advisory body.
• Hold more open meetings.

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

• Recommendation for joint PSC/CDC meetings w/Technical Service colleagues
• Increased representation on councils needed
• Could two of the councils (CDC and PSC) be joined?
• The Library Council is ambitious idea that is perhaps not "implementable"
• Collapse Council's into one, with associated working groups
• Combine Planning Committee with the Library Board
• There is support for a one Council model and also for a two Council model
• The Library Board could serve as a coordinating group for other groups
• Board versus Council -would one be operational and one programmatic?
• What is the connection between the Library Board and the Councils?
• What is the function of Cabinet in the proposed structure?
• A single Library Board should replace, and not coexist with, Cabinet
• Representatives to groups could self-designate
• RUL should support the re-emergence of working groups
• What would the relationship between the Planning Committee, the Library Board, and Cabinet be?
• Cabinet should conduct an open meeting and faculty should be represented
• Communication is key: procedures and responsibilities should be made clear
• There should be a single Council with additional task forces
• Is there a place for personnel issues in a single Council?
• How should a combined single Council relate to AULs?
• The Library Advisory Board should include staff
• Do we still need the Coordinating Committee in the new structure?
• Would a single Council in fact impede work due to size?
• Is a single Council the most effective structure for influence on decision-making processes?
• Where will Council recommendations be presented and responded to?
• It is easy for accountability to be lost in a multi-group structure and Council representatives have to be accountable
• Additional support for two Councils offered
• Discussion in the Councils does not trickle down (or up) as RUL needs.
• Representatives to any group have to have a constituency
• Councils should be linked to the Library Board
• There is some skepticism about the Library Board; its relationship to Cabinet is murky
• 'More is more' - overlap in PSC/CDC is productive - a single Council may lead to decisions that are 'broad but not deep'
• RUL's slow deliberative process points to the potential utility of 3rd Council - a Digital Services Council
• It is a myth that Councils deal w/same issues, while decisions may impact the work of other Councils, each Council needs time and space to focus on issues.
• The proposed reorganization chart might have been shared earlier, perhaps it should have been shared with the Planning and Coordinating Committee first
• If it is difficult to get people to run for elections, so why would they self-identify as representatives?
• Where does Technical Services and the TSC fit in - where would these issues be addressed?
• A single Council seems 'mushy' - what is then the distinction between the Library Board and the Council - would one have higher authority than the other?
• RUL should continue to use current model
• Can Digital Services be separated out? (RUL should center its focus on digital services, rather than marginalize it)
• RUL has forged a consensus today on many issues, but perhaps the Council-related issues need more discussion

COMMUNICATION ISSUES

• Communication issues remain a persistent problem
• Importance of lunch, or of meeting formally and informally together in smaller groups
• Take advantage of avenues for input
• We need to be talking about more than just the faculty structure
• Greater attendance is a positive
• There is a disconnect between personnel in the physical libraries
• Cross-pollination across campuses should be promoted
• Communication across task forces and through RUL: how do we involve TAS?
• The new structure must improve communication-the structure should be flat and transparent
• The real key is communication
• There should be increased one on one and group communication

FACULTY GOVERNANCE

• Fluidity between faculty and administrative structures
• Issues surrounding mentoring and tenure track faculty
• Would it be possible to divide the large group of library faculty in New Brunswick into smaller groups in order to provide direct access to an AUL?
• A single faculty for promotion/tenure issues would be useful
• There are divisions in the faculty, not only amongst the three campuses, but also in NB between NBL and other units. Technical Services needs representation.
• Non tenure track faculty may not be appointed to committees but wish to contribute and so need the opportunity to do so

OTHER

• There is a disconnect between decision-making & action-taking, and funding is the link in between the two
• What is the relationship between the position of Associate University Library for Research and Instructional Services and Cataloging?
• How do AULs work with faculty in the new structure and what is their access to that structure?
• The Planning Committee is fading away from the position of AUL for Organizational Planning and Research
• RUL should schedule another meeting like this, or send this to the Planning and Coordinating Committee meeting on its way to the RUL Faculty meeting
• It is recommended to the Planning and Coordinating Committee to stage any changes that may occur and provide opt-out options
• There is some resistance to using Kilmer 010 as a faculty meeting venue. The Pane room might be a better setting.