New Brunswick Libraries Faculty Meeting
April 16, 1999
 

Present:   B.Beede, I. Caparros, J. Cassel, J. Consoli, H. Dess, E. Fabiano (convener),
                   R. Gardner, E. Gilbert, R. Jantz, M. Kesselman, L. Langschied, J. Mardikian,
                   K. Mulcahy, F. Olin (recorder), P. Piermatti, H. Rusak, A. Tallau, T. Tate,
                   F. Tehrani, R. Toyama, R. Womack, M. Wilson, C. Wu

Agenda:

1. Minutes of the March 19, 1999 meeting approved.

Motion to approve was made by Kevin, seconded by Howard after the following changes
were made: Ellen Calhoun was not "Present" and therefore, the vote to return item #4 to the
Agenda was 14 "yes" and 2 "abstain", not 15 "yes" and 2 "abstain".
2.  Defining a quorum for the meetings
The number of librarians in New Brunswick libraries is 49.  Discussion followed on librarians
who constitute voting faculty of the 49; the quorum is calculated on this number. Howard moved
and Kevin seconded motions that we follow current RUL by-lawson this issue:
"Librarians IV who have served less than one year and Librarians V are invited and encouraged
to attend the meetings and to participate in the discussions, but shall not vote."

"Twenty-five percent of the membership shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business."
(quorum of "9" for the NB libraries, convener's note)

The motions were approved with one abstention.  Also, as per University regulations, Joe reminded
us that faculty in their terminal year are not eligible to vote.

3.  Director's report
Ryoko congratulated recipients of the recent FASIP awards.  In comparative summary data, the
percent of eligible faculty receiving awards for the libraries was 92.4%, 93.9% pharmacy and
94.4% GSAPP, the two highest.  The lowest number of recipients was the School of Social Work,
60%.  The GSE and SCILS were very high in the percent of faculty who received awards above
$6000.

The reaction of students to the libraries' ICI (student computing fees) funds proposal for networked
printing included these comments:

 *many teaching departments have or are creating lab settings in the departments
   where students work; there is less need for networked printing
 *networked printing would benefit the many non-RU users of the libraries; not
   RU students responsibility
 *investing in this convenience contradicts the University's focus on RUNet 2000
   and networking to sites outside the libraries
 *the logical step is for RUCS to add more printers to hubs

RUL received some ICI funds to develop a pilot test of printing needs in one library building without
an undergrad hub; this is still under negotiation.

Ron informed us that the Technology Group has suggested that RUL computers be networked to
RUCS hubs where printing is accommodated.

4.  Evaluating NB organizational structure
Emily distributed a copy of the NB organizational chart showing the structural relationship to the
RUL organizational chart, as per requests made at last month's meeting.  The suggestion to begin
a review of the organizational structure with the NB mission and goals was put on hold.  The RUL
Coordinating Committee is to begin a review of the RUL mission and goals and it makes sense to
review ours following that outcome. Emily distributed copies of the "NB Faculty Organizational
Structure-Evaluation Form" to guide the evaluation discussion process and to be used as a survey
form should the discussion be prolonged.  The form covers retention of the group structure,
leadership selection and eligibility of term of office.

A.  NB Library faculty
Under this area the faculty focused on the role of the convener and our current meeting arrangements.
Meetings are necessary as a forum to enhance communication, conduct business and to develop
viewpoints and decisions that go beyond individual library buildings.

DECISION: Continue meeting once a month. Additional meetings called as needed.

As the NB faculty organization emerged a convener was needed to convene the meetings and
provide the agenda but the role has evolved into broader areas of responsibilityŚcoordinate FASIP
and other personnel matters, orientation of new faculty, that which falls through the cracks, etc.
In addition, faculty see the need for a convener to identify areas of concern across NB libraries,
to orchestrate resolutions to issues and to represent the NB libraries within the RUL structure.

DECISIONS:   1-Howard moved, seconded by Addie, that the convener role for the NB
                           faculty be referred to as the New Brunswick Faculty Chair.  All agreed.
                           2-Jeris and Emily will provide a position description, spelling out the role
                           and responsibilities of a chair.
                           3--Someone elected for a two-year term, beginning July 1.

It was suggested that the NB Faculty Chair be the NB representative to the Coordinating
Committee and that we be cautious in adding responsibilities to this role that would created
an additional level to our current hierarchical administrative structure.  Also, we might want
to consider providing release time for the Chair.

B.  Group Structure
In lieu of distributing paper describing all groups' activities for the year, leaders of each group
were asked to summarize the groups' accomplishments and any decisions reached through their
recent self-assessments.

(1)  Collections Group
 a.  Report given by Howard Dess on the Group's activities.

 DECISIONS:    1-Affirmed the need for the Group to continue
                             2-Chair/leader will be elected for a two-year term
                             3-Candidates to run on a platform

 b.  Arts and Humanities, Science and Social Sciences Subgroups.

 DECISIONS:   1-Groups will be retained but will not meet on a regular basis
                            2-Leaders will be elected for two-year terms

(2)  Information Services Group
 a.  Report given by Jackie Mardikian on the Group's activities.

 DECISIONS:  1-Affirmed the need for the Group
                           2-After today's review, any change in the subgroup structure should be
                           decided within the Information Services Group

 b.  Subgroups

 DECISIONS:   1-Reference Collection Group will move under the Collections
                            Group; a liaison to the ISG will be selected
                            2-Training Group to remain
                            3-Central Telephone Service Group to continue until implementation
                            of the program then assumed by a task force
                            4-Common Knowledge Database Group remains, selecting a liaison to the
                            Web Advisory Committee
                            5-Information Services Coordinating Team to continue
                            6-Technical Support Liaison continues and will also serve as liaison to the
                            PC Coordinating Group
                            7-Subgroup leaders to be elected for two-year terms

(3)  Instruction Group
 Report on Group activities by Kevin Mulcahy.

 DECISIONS:   1-Dissolve this group.  Most active members are representatives to the RUL
                            Instructional Services Group; issues are covered there.
                            2-On a motion by Joe faculty agreed that, before dissolving, the Group select
                            a liaison to the Information Services Steering Group for a year to see if this is
                            beneficial.  The liaison would convene an instructional services caucus of the
                            NB faculty should the need arise.

(4)  Technology Group
Report on Group activities by Marty Kesselman.  Discussion focused on the need for the
Technology Group to be more advisory in nature, to interact with other NB groups more.
The Group's activities should not drive service activities but the reverse should be. For example,
to advise on technology needed to develop self-check out.

 DECISIONS:  1-Group continues to exist
                           2-Leader will be elected for a two-year term
                           3-Select liaisons from the Group to other Groups, including Access and
                           Collection Services, to increase the Group's connection and interaction with them;
                           to determine issues that need addressing

Linda raised a concern that the decisions and resolutions we make as a faculty are not always
visible and evident enough since we decided to operate in the absence of by-laws.

 DECISIONS:  1-Action items will be highlighted in the minutes (hence the "DECISIONS" in
                           these minutes)
                           2-The Technology Group will reactivate the NB faculty's Web presence to
                           communicate decisions as well.  Linda offered to coordinate.

5.  Report from the New Brunswick Planning Group
Jeris led discussion on the two-fold report from the Planning Group: the role of the group and the
Librarian V proposal for Alexander Library.

A.  Role of the NB Planning Group
Lengthy discussion ensued concerning vacant lines:  this groups' role in determining local versus
NB needs in filling these lines; attempts to have other bodies advise on and created initial
descriptions have not been successful.  The day-to-day role of persons in vacant lines and overall
NB needs need to be balanced.  The basic issue is where to begin the process of creating position
profiles for vacant lines.

 DECISION:  1-The role of the NB Planning Group was accepted.  The phrase "to provide
                         recommendations for specific open positions" will be removed from their charge.
                        The Group will focus on long-term planning and guidelines.
                        2-Ryoko will appoint an exploratory committee for each new vacant position to
                        develop the position profile which will then be brought to the entire NB faculty.

B.  Librarian V proposal for Alexander
Jeris reviewed the NB Planning Group's comments on the proposal.  Addie pointed out that
statement #1 is not reflected in the minutes of the March meeting as stated. Discussion covered
the following issues:  The position as described does not reflect a Librarian V level, rather a
Library Associate II; need to review hiring Librarian IVs and Vs in New Brunswick and their
role in the faculty structure.

 DECISIONS:  1-Joe moved and Linda seconded that the NB Planning Group revise the
                           proposed Librarian V profile with a generic position description for this
                           level librarian in New Brunswick.  All agreed.
                           2-A "drop dead" decision will be made on this line at the May meeting.