New Brunswick Libraries Faculty Meeting

Minutes
Friday, December 21, 2001 9:30 a.m.


Present: S. Bartz, E. Calhoun, J. Cassel, K. Denda, H. Dess, M. Fetzer (Chair), T. Glynn, B. Hancock, S. Hines, H. Hoffman, R. Jantz, M. Kesselman, T. Kuchi, P. Libutti, K. Mulcahy, L. Murtha, J. Niessen, F. Olin, P. Page, F. Puniello, E. Stec, A. Tallau, S. Tama (Recorder), R. Toyama, K. Wenk, M. Wilson, R. Womack.


1) The minutes of the November 16, meeting were approved.

2) Chair's Announcements---M. Fetzer

Change in agenda - F. Puniello to present her director's report first. R. Toyama's report to follow. Agenda with changes approved.

Welcomed new NB librarian Karen Wenk.

Meeting dates for 2002: January 18, February 15, March 15, April 19, May 17, June 21; to begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Pane Room.

Unless urgent issues arise, it is likely that the January 18 meeting will be cancelled due to the ALA mid-winter conference and tenured faculty meetings going on around that time.

M. Fetzer is planning orientations for new hires. These will likely occur in February.

There is a new librarian at SMLR. While this is not an RUL line, M. Fetzer suggested that the new librarian be invited to attend and participate in NBL faculty meetings as well as in orientations. Agreed to by NBLF members.

3.) Directors' Reports

F. Puniello:

The Annex construction continues. Electricity in TSB will be down on Saturday, January 19, 2002, while a generator is replaced. As a result, the online catalog will be down during this time. A temporary certificate of occupancy for the Annex is expected by mid-February and a permanent certificate near the end of March. The projected date of reopening of the Annex is March 22, 2002, though delays are possible and there are no guarantees.

R. Toyama has received notification that the Teaching Excellence Center will be moving out of KLMR by July 1, 2002.

Regarding D21, the final approved design has been sent out. Construction could start by August, 2001.

R. Toyama:

R. Toyama requested ten minute open discussion on what NBLF members see as the general landscape for 2002. The following are points raised by various members:

· There will likely be a job freeze, a closing of ranks across the board, and new appointments across the board of governors
· Buyouts will be offered to state employees
· There will be a new AUL (Grace Agnew) with a lot of potential for user focused services in the technology realm
· Problems in collections, specifically, a $850,000 grant from Vice President Seneca's office could be in doubt - there needs to be a contingency plan in the event that the special allocation does not come through again; collections will be lucky to get a "stand still" budget
· Need to evaluate access services provided to remote locations
· D21 will have a major impact on one of the NB libraries
· Need to be more creative with collection in terms of developing virtual materials
· A bigger push on services that are scalable, e.g. MetaLib, FLX and "My Library"; need to provide personalized service to users; and, need to look at all of the libraries' services and see how we can scale up with fewer librarians and staff
· Need a measurement of instruction of which groups are being served; need to create a model of instruction to reach our entire population
· Instruction is moving toward collaboration with non-library faculty; this will take a long time to implement
· Need to publicize more of what we do to the academic community
· It is necessary to look at our digital collection for overlap and quality because we cannot cut periodicals any more than has already been done

R. Toyama distributed a handout entitled, "Rutgers University Libraries 2000/2001 Library Lines, 6/30/01" (relating to permanent lines). There are 47.50 Faculty lines; 67.55 A/P/S (supervisory level staff) lines; 30.33 Staff Clerical lines. The total number of lines for New Brunswick Libraries is 145.38. The total number of lines for all of RUL is 303.38.

If there are any buyouts, they will occur on April 1, 2002. An announcement on whether they will occur at all will come by mid-February. Arlene Minch's office, which takes care of benefits, has been fielding questions regarding the possible buyouts. There are 12 A/P/S staff members interested in buyouts. A buyout could mean a line freeze or a line going. R. Toyama reported that with the last buyout, there was a freeze and the line could not be filled with even temporary librarians. So, there are consequences to buyout. The buyouts would provide an additional five years of health benefits.

R. Toyama distributed the University of Arizona (UA) application for the ACRL Excellence in Academic Libraries Award. The two main sections of the application (ACRL Criteria: Creativity and innovation in meeting needs of the academic community and the ACRL Criteria: Leadership in developing and implementing exemplary programs that other libraries can emulate) set forth various issues addressed by the University of Arizona. Actions taken and outcomes are also described. These sections of the application were used as a framework for discussion/brainstorming in the context of RUL.

Some initial comments were made for context:

· The University of Arizona has gone through a reorganization that took a long time; there is one administrator; this is a team based organization; some people were dissatisfied and some left the employment of the library; the library achieved a lot which speaks to their reorganization; NBL has reorganized but the rest of RUL has not which has effected operations
· For comparison purposes, the University of Arizona library is Tucson-based with 32,783 enrollment and 210 staff with no branch libraries

As to the first section ACRL Criteria: Creativity and innovation in meeting needs of the academic community (referred to for discussion purposes as Section A), the specific issues come from the University of Arizona's application. Following each issue from the ACRL/UA document (in italics) are our comments relating to RUL:

Issue A-1: Students identified a need for increased library hours.

· RU students were surveyed last year regarding library hours, specifically regarding interest in 24 hour service. F. Tehrani kept statistics. Only a handful of responses came in. The cost of extending hours did not justify the limited interest.
· Reference questions often come in just before 9:00 p.m. as the reference desk is closing. Library service may have to adjust to students' study schedules.
· DSS is considering real time reference with PC in library where questions can be placed. Librarian on duty at home could receive calls through the interface.
· An observation that there are fewer succinct reference questions. Instead, doing more lengthy instruction at the reference desk.
· Computer labs are open 24 hours.

Issue A-2: In 1992 students and faculty identified as inadequate Interlibrary Loan, Reserve Books and Shelving services.

· ILL is an essential service. An estimated 60% of AAL questions concern ILL. Turnaround time is critical.
· ILL service should be evaluated further. Reshelving service is fine with no complaints.
· Need to look at models of data collection. What is done with collected statistics? Need to look at electronic information which slows down more and more.
· Need to look at RRS, too. Users are less than satisfied with a 3 to 5 day wait for material. We do not see in our statistics the people who do not use the service because it will take too long.
· Regarding statistics, we need to ask where we want to be? It is hard to get a consensus on that. Often, goal cannot be achieved in one year. Wonders how many errors there are in the online catalog. Libraries have to decide on 3 or 4 things that really need to be sustained.
· Caution putting more resources into things. This means that something else will receive less. Need to look at making what "we do" more efficient. Ex. Collection. Look into streamlining.
· Libraries should study students to pinpoint their needs.
· Libraries should also look outside of the library to determine where else students get information; Ex. Faculty
· Since Princeton pulled out of the state interlibrary loan project, RU may pick up more business.
· Newark and Camden are still reviewing requests on ILL. Patrons are requesting items that RUL owns. There should be a way to intervene before waiting too long.
· There is a lack of communicating to people on the front line. Ex. the turnaround time at different points in the semester and the disabling of anonymous email on new computers. Information like this should be known so that it can be relayed to users.
· Libraries should not just collect data; instead, set objectives and benchmark, then collect data.

Issue A-3: Remote access to library materials has been identified as a need by university library users.

· RUL is doing better than the University of Arizona in this area.

Issue A-4: Focus groups and use statistics demonstrated that customers were frustrated with the UA's Library web page because they could not find needed information.

· If librarian's have trouble finding information, how can we expect users to.
· Agreed by all that this is a priority.
· The library web page may be the main presence to the rest of the world. Our page is evidence of our thinking.
· The web site is the electronic version of one of our buildings. We have to navigate people through the web site the same way we try to navigate people through our buildings. The site needs to be personalized. Once users know the building, they can get to things easily. "My Library" demonstrates that. Cannot get caught up in the minutia when working on the web site. A graphics consultant has been hired and the site will be more attractive. Yet, the same information underlying it still overwhelms users. Need to talk to users directly on how they use the web site.
· Does not think web page is that horrible. There are a few discreet problems, but they're big.
· Committees/groups are working to improve the web site.
· Unnecessary to have groups such as assessment look at it.
· Need to target different users. Cannot try to hit everyone at once. "My Library" will allow libraries to improve that.
· NC State that won the 2000 ACRL award uses "My Library"

Issue A-5: The University of Arizona has been concerned about retention especially between the freshman and sophomore years.

· Need to get computing labs and libraries closer together. Students do not want to give up their seats. They are asking computer assistants questions. Libraries need to work together with the computing labs.

As to the second section ACRL Criteria: Leadership in developing and implementing exemplary programs that other libraries can emulate (referred to for discussion purposes as Section B):

Issue B-1: In 1992 and in preparation for the new century and the changing demands of library users, the UA Library asked itself how could the customer become the focus of work.

· We could be using our energies more efficiently.
· Benefit to having a joint council rather than three separate.

Issue B-2: The Board of Regents, the state legislature and the university administration has placed greater emphasis on cost effective programs and budget accountability.

· Most comments serve the needs of undergraduates. Do not want to bury needs of graduate students and all the wonderful sources the libraries own. There is a great range of materials that one cannot get to using the online site. Jobs impacted may involve technical service. This effects gift processing, etc. Word has to get out on what the libraries have.
· There is a tendency toward more "plain vanilla" collecting across the country with approval plans. Everyone is getting the same thing.
· Order backlog is four weeks. There should be an interleaving of cataloging with the ordering process. UA has cut orders leaving the library from 40 hours to 24 hours. There is inertia in the RUL system. What can we do in our culture to improve?
· There is a need for a thorough analysis of all parts of the process. Need to look at ourselves.
· Will eventually have to shift resources - an answer may already be coming.
· Hopefully, Grace Agnew and her expertise will solve this.
· We cannot depend on everyone else. Each person has to take a lead.
· Why do we have 3 councils?
· Need to look at outsourcing.
· Ordering is not the only problem. Ex. gift processing.
· The libraries have bright staff - many with MLS degrees - that are underutilized. They know best what they do. They should be included more in decision making.
· Technical services is removed from the libraries. They need to be involved more in information services so they can see the effect of what they do.
· Issue is agreed to be a priority.
· Are we ready to give up lines for this? Are we willing to shift our concept for improvement?

Issue B-3: Information costs are rising while state budgets are decreasing.

· The SPARC initiative is very interesting.
· RUL is in good shape on this. RUL is a charter member of SPARC.

Issue B-4: Many faculty members, frustrated because undergraduate students lacked thorough research skills, requested that the University of Arizona Library scale up its information literacy program.

· Libraries need to pay particular attention to graduate students. More online tutorials are needed.
· RUL level funding is to come in a year or two to develop suite of tutorial modules. Building online instruction is important. Need to figure out how to scale our instruction to the libraries' population. Difficult to develop high level instruction without feedback. It is more mechanical rather than thoughtful. There is a limit to how effective we can be in the online environment unless we go to WebCT or similar courses.

IssueB-5: Research shows that students of color are more likely to stay in college and use the Library if they do not experience isolation.
and
Issue B-6: Having a diverse staff is part of the library's strategic goals, as well as a core value.
and
Issue B-7: Technology presents a unique tool to address issues of diversity.

· Reference to T. Tate's outreach.
· We are doing good in other ways. If necessary, this can come back to the diversity group.

Issue B-8: Librarians play a key role in graduating life long learners.

· The teaching faculty make the assumption that students come in from high school with information literacy skills. ACRL came out with IL outcomes. This is a very critical role for the libraries. The libraries need to reach students early.

Issue B-9: Information issues and technological opportunities demand that librarians support more actively faculty research.

· The Coordinating Committee is looking at these issues and planning a Spring symposium to focus on ideas to form partnerships with faculty.
· Getting teaching faculty to be proactive in the process is very difficult. Teaching faculty have their own agenda. They do not see the libraries' challenges as their challenges until put into a context.
· Undergraduates have a lot competing for their attention. The libraries' problems are at the bottom of the list.

Conclusion of discussion/brainstorming

Additional discussion regarding human resources.

There are two faculty lines that will not be addressed until March.

4) Shaping a Life - Commentary/Discussion - E. Stec

E. Stec presented overview of the Shaping a Life program and the library instruction component of the course. SAL is a mission course/writing class for 800+ first year Douglass College students. Librarians and SCILS students instructed sessions, meeting 3 times with his or her respective section over the course of the Fall semester. A goal was to establish a personal connection between the instructor and his or her students. Students and instructing librarians participated in a research study relating to students' research competencies and the library instruction.

A standard and questions were developed to assess whether students met the standard. Pre- and post-assessments were created in an online format. SAL students could decline participation in the research study but they had to complete both of the assessments. Approximately ¼ of the students declined to complete the assignment at all and lost credit toward their final grade. All instructing librarians and SCILS student teachers participated as research subjects.

Data will be compiled and it is anticipated that, by 7/1/02, data will be put at the DSS reference desk. E. Stec to present the data at a future NBLF meeting. Online module on plagiarism/academic integrity (developed by E. Stec and others) was also demonstrated. SAL students had to submit proof of completing the module. The module is a form of blended/hybrid learning. E. Stec will be writing a chapter for publication in an ACRL book relating to development of the module. S. Hines and Tony Joachim, PC coordinator at Douglass Library, participated in the development of the online pre- and post- assessments as well as the plagiarism/academic integrity module.

5) My Library Portal - M. Kesselman, S. Hines

Deferred to February meeting due to time constraints


6) No Old Business

7) No New Business

8) Meeting adjourned