Ben Beede, Ellen Calhoun, Ilona Caparros, Nelson Chou, Joe Consoli
(convener), Howard Dess, Mary Fetzer, Rebecca Gardner, Ellen Gilbert, Jackie
Mardikian, Jia Mi, Mary Page, Pat Piermatti (secretary), Francoise Puniello,
Jane Sloan, Addie Tallau, Farideh Tehrani, Lourdes Vazquez, Ryan Womack
Agenda was approved after an enquiry by Howard Dess regarding Item 4. Joe
Consoli reported on a request by Marty Kesselman (who could not be present
today) to withdraw Item 4 from discussion at the meeting. By voice vote
(results, YES=14; Abstentions=2) request to withdraw Item 4 for discussion
was defeated and Howard Dess will conduct discussion.
Minutes of prior NB Library Faculty meeting were approved with minor
correction.Howard Dess (not Mary Page) is chair of the fund code
subcommittee of NBCG.
2. Director's Report - Francoise Puniello
Activities Grant Program - Friends of the Rutgers University Libraries will
provide funding for publicity and refreshments and will also give personal
assistance for library programs open to the public.
Performance Appraisal Program - Major changes in the program this year
require that those involved in annual evaluations of non-COLT staff attend a
series of workshops to complete the appraisal process.
Reminder that Rutgers University Open House is April 10.please invite any
students who wish to come. Libraries are participating in the open house.
The RU capital campaign will benefit the libraries: HVAC and stacks for
Annex; Douglass 21, Science Research Center, are among the projects
Brian Hancock has accepted RUL offer to be the Humanities Librarian. He is
slated to join us June 1st. Brian is a classicist/historian - strength is
3. Evaluating the NB organizational structure - Joe Consoli
The NB libraries have been reorganized for over 21 months now. It is time to
begin an evaluation process. In discussions that have been held, confusion
over the many groups/functions and conveners/facilitators has become
evident. An additional administrative layer was added. In Joe's opinion
the structure is cumbersome, functioning democratically, and is not
necessarily arriving at conclusions. Joe distributed a copy of the "New
Brunswick Libraries (NBL) Organizational Chart October 1998" for use in
Joe began the discussion by asking how to proceed with the evaluation
process. Should there be a once a year evaluation of a team? Some teams
are still in formation. If a particular team does not have a program are
they necessary? Discussion followed.
Howard commented that the organization chart as distributed, is
incomplete.does not reflect the existing structure interacting with NBL.
Mary Page commented that we should not confuse NBL with RUL systemwide
organization. Joe commented that as both interact, both should be included.
Ellen Gilbert agreed - for example, NBCG must work with SACDM. Addie Tallau
reminded the group that not all NBCG members are on SACDM. Several members
requested copy of the systemwide as well as the NBL organizational chart.
Francoise Puniello emphasized the importance of how NBL works viz a viz RU
Howard Dess then spoke on communication.he has a sense of a disconnect with
RU library administration.so much conversation about funding.feel
disenfranchised.Jane Sloan agreed.with so many meetings and overlapping in
decision making - communications channels breaking down. Jane asked how NBL
relate to RUL systemwide organization. Is the NBL organization developing
in a proactive or responsorial mode? Do NB librarians have a sense they can
make changes? Mary Fetzer agreed with Howard's comments. NBL have
different reporting to deans pathway than that of Camden and Newark. A
vulnerability of NBL with RUL Cabinet. It is nice to interact with
colleagues from other units.however interaction about minor issues.
Major issues already decided by RUL administration. Joe Consoli commented
about organizational layers - geographical layers; hierarchical, top to
Addie Tallau then said that the University Librarian is the final
decision-maker. However, there is a feeling we are not being represented.
We must place our ideas, views on table - Coordinating Committee etc. Jane
Sloan asked - what are our views? We have contradicted ourselves; our
collective desires unclear. Howard commented that the Coordinating
Committee only meets once a month with University Librarian. Not much
two-way communication is possible in a short time period. Mary Page
commented that we unintentionally undercut each other. NBL must learn to
let go - when a taskforce or group fulfills their charge and writes a plan,
we must let them move forward with implementation. Need to make decisions
and move forwards. Mary also commented that University Librarian is
constantly looking for input.we can speak to her on behalf of our
constituencies. More discussion about Cabinet ensued. Addie suggested that
in the introduction section of reports that we give a sense of context and
which groups have already discussed what is being discussed what is being
Joe Consoli then commented that NBL needs its own structure and needs to
empower its groups, like Information Services. Some discussion on review of
administrators then ensued.
Lourdes Vazquez recommended that the NBL organization chart include
accomplishments of the groups. Francoise suggested that NB library faculty
review the Transition Team report (dated October 1996).where are we.and
present to NB faculty for discussion. Joe concurred saying we need
evaluation.many NB library faculty speak about being reorganized but we have
not yet done a self evaluation. Discussion followed regarding standing
advisory committees, library budget. Farideh Tehrani commented that NB
library faculty recommendations on the SACs not dismissed - much discussion;
a very deliberate process.
Mary Fetzer then commented about the chart and communication. A need to
have more discussion of issues - particularly information services issues -
by entire NB library faculty. Jackie Mardikian replied that the Information
Services Steering Group is quite representative of NB library
faculty.however, more communication would help and sharing the ISSG mid-year
report is one way to begin. Lourdes Vazquez concurred and suggested
more communication from the various teams. More discussion. Addie
commented that not all groups are making decisions; also, groups are
reporting directly to Ryoko Toyama. Howard commented that NBCG has had
projects, made reports, concluded, reported to Ryoko and NB library faculty.
Mary then said that communication disconnects do exist. NB groups/teams are
having discussions and then reporting upwards and not laterally among all
NB library faculty. More discussion.
Jane Sloan commented that there are too many groups.Then, a lengthy
discussion followed after a comment about the two NB appointed
administrators of Collection Services and Access Services.
Jackie Mardikian then suggested collapsing of NB groups into a) Collections
and b) Information and Instruction; with technology a part of them all.
Mary Fetzer commented that sharing of minutes has been fine. Jane Sloan
commented about procedure. NBL discussion necessary before a group does
all of its work.group should have a strong sense of NBL support.
At 11:00am discussions closed with recommendation to be discussed at either
next NB or future library faculty meeting. Everyone should redraw the chart
as each thinks NB organization should be to work better. Francoise
recommended reviewing the mission first then re-drawing the chart.
4. Science/Technology Librarian position - Howard Dess
Howard Dess as member of Science/Technology Librarian search committee
appointed by Ryoko Toyama (Ellen Calhoun, Howard Dess, Ron Jantz, and Connie
Wu) began by giving a lengthy presentation of background information.
This science/digital projects library position builds upon work of Mei Ling
Lo who resigned in August 1998. Ryoko appointed a search committee and
asked the committee to update the position description. The search
committee considered needs of science libraries as a whole and not building
based. Search committee very cognizant of the electronic revolution; hoped
to hire a science librarian with a high level of technology competence to
help NBL move forward into the electronic realm. Search committee's
original position description based upon digital library projects. After
approval from RUL Planning Committee in late August, beginning in January
1999 opposition from NB library faculty and University Librarian came forth.
Position description too technology heavy.issue of tenurability. Search
committee rewrote description to include more subject focus.successive
rewrites after additional comments from University Librarian, NB library
faculty, and RUL Planning Committee. In February of this year assistance
sought from NB members of Planning Committee. On March 3rd a meeting of NB
members of Planning Committee was held and they discussed proper balance
between subject specialization and technology responsibilities. Nancy
Putnam offered detailed descriptive material which was incorporated into the
position description. Howard commented about his sense that Planning
Committee had overstepped their bounds. They appeared to have lost their
advisory voice. Much discussion.sense of faculty to endorse academic
position profile for Science and Digital Projects Librarian as distributed.
Send comments to Howard.
More discussions followed. Addie reminded faculty that we had decided to
have NB members of the Planning Committee review this position description
and develop a plan/strategy for NB. Jane Sloan commented that these line
issues definitely need a plan-allocation of resources. Mary Fetzer
commented that procedure for filling lines too long - need these positions
filled quickly. Francoise commented that the description is very good.
Then, Howard made a Motion to Accept "Science and Digital Projects Librarian
for NB Libraries" position description as written. Ilona Caparros seconded
Vote: Ayes - unanimous
Abstentions - none
5. Supporting Undergraduate Services - Joe Consoli
Joe began discussion by commenting upon diminishment of collections at
Douglass. Discussion ensued.inadequate library budgets have fueled problem.
Mary Page commented about Douglass and Cook College undergraduates seeking
resources at LSM, Alexander and elsewhere. We are not able to pick up the
slack created by the growing vacuum of resources at Douglass. Discussion
about mission of the NB libraries. There is some disagreement about service
to undergraduates who number over 35,000. Ideally, each subject specialist
buys for undergraduates as well as graduate students and faculty. However,
funds available woefully inadequate. Jane Sloan commented about different
theories of undergraduate support. Addie Tallau agreed.students coming to
LSM reference desk with 'aids' questions.consumer health.Mary Page stated
that problem started with duplication issue. When 'duplicate' became a
dirty word.undergraduate collections suffered - those collections needed
duplication. Mary Fetzer commented that in some undergraduate subject
areas, NB is supported by what Camden and Newark has purchased. How are we
supporting undergraduates? Need a statement.
More discussion. Joe Consoli asked the group to review Douglass 21 plan.
Addie Tallau commented that even with current funding constraints we need a
plan on how we can help undergraduates. More discussion, including Rebecca
Gardner's comment that the libraries need to provide more than just Internet
Meeting began at 9:40 am adjourned at 12:25pm.
Secretary du jour,