New Brunswick Libraries Faculty Meeting
Friday, December 15, 2006
Pane Room, Alexander Library, College Avenue Campus

Attendees:
S. Bartz, J. Cassel, K.Denda, H. Dess, M. Fetzer, J. Gardner, R. Gardner, K. Hartman (recorder), M. Kesselman, T. Kuchi, M. L. Lo, J. Mardikian,
K. Mulcahy, L. Mullen, J. Niessen, P. Page, F. Puniello, J. Shepard, J. Sloan, R. Womack, C. Wu

Minutes:

1. The agenda was adopted
   
   
2. The minutes of the November 17, 2006 NBLF meeting were approved.
   
   
3. AUL’s Report:
   

   Open lines status-The searches for the East Asian Librarian, Humanities, and Social Sciences Data Librarians are will be reopened.  Because of budget restraints it is important to fill these positions this fiscal year.

   This year’s budget-F. Puniello reported she has approximately $100,000 she would like to use for collections, to buy back a staff line for a computing specialist for Alexander, and to keep some in reserve for a potential giveback in July.  She noted that if the fiscal 08 budget is better, NB could fill the next two faculty lines. What these positions would be is an issue for the exploratory committee.

   K. Mulcahy added a comment re: the collections budget.  Despite our refinements of the approval plan and even with Puniello’s help, it is unlikely we will be able to fund the approval plan through the end of this fiscal year.  He is querying R. Sewell and M. Page about actions we may take.

   Facilities-Money has been set aside for a group study room in Alexander and Puniello is seeking an estimate from RU facilities. One set of stacks for oversize periodicals is also being purchased.  Access Services has some extra money and will expand late night access (see Access Services Report below.)  A bid will be going out soon for the Douglass multimedia resource room, a donor project.  The project includes a new conference room in the Foster Center and new group study space.

   Transformation of Undergraduate Education-F. Puniello spoke with Professor Barry V. Qualls (Interim Vice-President for Undergraduate Education) regarding the relative scarcity of librarians on relevant implementation committees.  She will give him names to consider.

   Capital campaign proposals-The Library’s proposals have been sent to Dr. Furmanski.  They were grouped into three areas- collections, facilities, and academic excellence.  The facilities proposals include $132,000,000 for a new science library and  $3,000,000 for Kilmer renovations.

4. Exploratory Committee
   
   This committee is charged to consider lines for next fiscal year.  Members are Mary Fetzer, Jeris Cassel, Kevin Mulcahy, and Helen Hoffman.  A report from the committee will be an agenda meeting each month.
   
   
5. Draft guidelines for Librarian Recruitment relating to Librarian Vs
   

   1. Draft guidelines for Librarian Recruitment relating to Librarian Vs
   
   J. Sloan distributed a section of the draft “Guidelines for Advice to the University Librarian on Priorities for Faculty Personnel Line Assignments and Recruitment” that deals with Librarian V’s. She noted this section reiterates the ideas already approved by the New Brunswick Library Faculty in its Reference Manual http://nbl/nbl_info_services/isg_documents/nbrefmanual.html and is part of a larger document on “Hiring Priorities” currently under review by Planning and Coordinating Committee.
   
   Part of the discussion that followed concerned the status of Librarian IVs in contrast to Librarian Vs. University Senate has approved changes that permit three-year appointments as instructors, with no restrictions on successive reappointments, and Puniello noted this may apply to Librarian IVs. She will explore this further. There is no automatic renewal for Librarian Vs and it is equivalent to a faculty appointment as an assistant instructor.
   
   Several members noted that we currently have two types of Librarian Vs, and that those personnel distinctions (between those who continue in that status and those who have only the normal temporary appointment) have been individually approved by the NBL Faculty in the past. These agreements should recognize those given major ongoing responsibilities, and appropriately fit them into a Librarian IV rank as noted above.  Some faculty indicated that it weakens us to have many Librarian Vs and, going forward, the draft policy affirms the need for hiring in tenure-track positions and does away with ambiguities re: Librarian Vs.

6. New Brunswick ISG
   
   J. Sloan reiterated that we still do not have a chair and asked for discussion on the issue.  Reference team leaders feel there is still a need for this position.  K. Mulcahy suggested we wait until spring to see if anyone is willing to run.  He proposed an agenda item for the new year-exploring our vision of what information services should be and then constructing a committee (team leaders and others) to develop the vision.  J. Sloan suggested in the interim, ISG issues will come to the committee of the whole.
   
   
7. Access Services Update
   

   J. Gardner reported that NBL Access Services received funding to restore some late-night building hours.  Spring semester hours additions:
   SERC:       Sun-Thur.  11pm-1am
   Alex:         Sun-Wed.    1am-2am
   Kilmer:      Sun-Thur.  11pm-midnight
   Dglss:        Sun-Thur. 11pm-midnight

   There are no changes to the cuts at branch libraries.

   J. Gardner discussed training that Access Services on all campuses is receiving.
   Refresher sessions on public service skills at the desks focus on customer service standards. Question analysis and referral standards are discussed in midyear reviews (J. Cassel helped to develop these protocols).  Information service standards will be introduced on all three campuses by an instruction services librarian in January, hopefully.  The three sets of standards are available at: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/access_serv/policies.shtml

   
   
8. RUCore Faculty Services and Applications Working Group Report
   

   R. Gardner discussed what is currently available via the RUCore web page and provided an update on the thinking re: faculty submissions and a testing period using library faculty.  In the discussion that followed many questions and issues were raised:

   • More discussion and feedback with the technical developers is needed.
   • Conceptual foundations need to be laid out more clearly and more details provided; policy guidelines re: what can be submitted need to be more fully developed with library faculty participation and a copyright policy has to be finalized.
   • Faculty submission requires librarians to be mediators who have knowledge of digital rights, copyright, licensing.  Education and training is vital for this group.
   • Are we asking RUL faculty to contribute as an experiment or to deposit permanently?  Would everyone participate?
   • Science is “different” (non-verbal), e.g., star maps, chemical reactions, etc.  How is this being taken into account?
   • How does our repository fit in more broadly with other such initiatives regionally, globally?  Is “exclusivity” a problem, e.g., if you deposit in another repository, does this mean the item can’t also go in RUCore?  
   • How are the DRRC, CDC, and the Scholarly Communication Committee involved in RUCore and the development of policies and procedures?
   • How is RUCore development affecting other traditional and needed RUL operations?
   
   
   • Institute on Scholarly Communication  (ACRL) update
     

     J. Niessen and B.Sewell attended this event in Durham, N.C., December 6-8.  J. Niessen reported that they joined 40 other institutional teams in an immersion program led by experts in the field.  They came away with strategies for engaging faculty, making systemic changes and a list of priorities for moving the SCC  program forward here.

      

     Respectfully submitted,
     Karen Hartman