Attendees: Ellen Calhoun, Jeris Cassel, Joe Consoli, Kayo Denda, Howard Dess, Tom Glynn, Brian Hancock, Ron Jantz, Marty Kesselman, Triveni Kuchi, Linda Langschied, Patricia Libutti, Mei Ling Lo, Kevin Mulcahy(Chair),Laura Mullen(recorder),Leslie Murtha, Jim Niessen, Penny Page, Pat Piermatti, Francoise Puniello, Jane Sloan, Eileen Stec, Thelma Tate, Farideh Tehrani, Ryoko Toyama, Lourdes Vazquez, Karen Wenk, Myoung C. Wilson, Connie Wu
A) Title: Collection Management/Preservation Librarian
This person would report to RT and work closely with FT
HD: Will person have the budget necessary to carry out responsibilities and initiate projects?
KM: person would be directing staff resources into working on various projects
MK: reminder that gift money given to Alex. is in part for preservation
MCW: money has had to be spent on a consultant for planning for preservation
HD: candidate will ask what their budget is
KM: in a tight job market, we should be able to attract a qualified Lib. IV
RT: NBL needs an ongoing inventory process and plan for coordination of collections/preservation. Need a vision-examples of Douglass Rationalization and LSM Spec. Collections as the status quo.
JC: gave example of a collection that moved around without a real plan. Coordination saves money in the long run. Person would see whole NB system and coordinate movement of all materials.
JS: questions the care of non-print materials and asks whether there was a focus more on print in the exploratory committee
RT: print collection is a major focus-person must be flexible to maximize the ability to seek grants
HD: reiterating need to be realistic-person should not be expected to do grandiose things with a "vapor" budget
CW: what will the relationship would be with the digital librarians and the SCC
LL: gave a description of digital preservation program and the camera that has been acquired
MLO: raised concern about line in APP regarding "training." Will person be responsible for training?
HD: recommended adding word "preservation" to line relating to training.
RJ: SCC spends much time on infrastructure; workflows need developing. Example: who decides whether an item goes through a digital or traditional preservation route?
MK: feels that description fits Lib. II, not IV and that we need a person to assess what's needed and develop a comprehensive plan for the system.
LL, FT and FP disagree as they feel that person can start slowly and build
KD voiced her support for position after her experience with Douglass rationalization; envisions teamwork and coordination
RT: we have flexibility as far as Lib. II or IV go-new opportunities open up.
KM: asked for endorsement of position description as written and EC recommends adding the word "preservation" to the line about training.
Vote taken and position description is endorsed unanimously.
B) Title: SCC/Systems IT Position
RT: distributed "IT Human Resources 2002" which is meant to be an inventory of RUL resources with the addition of another webmaster and the reclassification or the two PC Coordinators' positions. Comparison made with Penn. St. and UVa. showing our relative lack of resources.
Discussion centers on conversion of faculty line to high-level staff position:
KM: value of faculty status and how to best serve users; staff lines have been lost and faculty lines preserved. Person as staff would not be involved in professional activities
MK: Lib. IV gives us maximum flexibility and gives us ability to be creative; need to build bridges throughout the system
CW: compared responsibilities of subject specialists to those of 10 years ago; supports move to high level staff. There is so much work to do and librarians spend so much time on committees.
JS: Conversion is permanent; Systems Dept. is overwhelmed
FP: supports position as written; person can focus on responsibilities of position and will not be as fragmented.
TT: questioned reporting structure; more people needed in Ref. Dept.; would like to see this second position developed similarly to the first-to build into these IT responsibilities a professional component.
JC: new lines can and do happen if you have strong support from your administration. We need help with library projects.
LL: we shouldn't wait any longer; a lot of money is available for digital projects. Infrastructure takes much of the time of SCC, ex. Luna. Further discussion of current SCC personnel and ongoing responsibilities and projects.
FT: We need the high level staff; they make our jobs easier and help us do our work better.
TG: requiring an MLS will narrow the applicant pool
KW, BH: great idea to give someone the freedom to work without the faculty obligations. It would be hard to find a librarian to fit these specific qualifications needed.
MCW: reminder of irreversibility of conversion of the line. People do ask "What's in it for me?"
RT: really think of the reporting structure and remember to honor the infrastructure supported by faculty.
PL: related her positive experience with high level staff in a previous position.
Vote taken to endorse position as high level staff: 21-4 with 2 abstentions. Position is approved as written.
KM for SB: how long do we want to keep minutes NBLF minutes
available online? Motion to keep minutes archived as a historical record.
KM: need to reschedule April meeting date- will let everyone know
MK: gave a brief report of the positive results with continuing pilot of Ask a Librarian "Live"
MCW: invites all to breakfast with Hunter-Gault on March 5(this has since been cancelled)
MCW: reminder from Public Services Council to get books declared "missing" immediately from the Ref. Desk so patrons may take advantage of all delivery options to get research materials quickly.
KW: reminder about "Research Revolution" series of films/discussion with Professor Peter Day.
JC: reminder about Thurs. March 6 reception for Joan Ullman Schwartz's gift of David Slivka's sculpture at the Art Library(later cancelled due to inclement weather and will be rescheduled)
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Laura Bowering Mullen 3/7/03