Present: M Kesselman, E Stec, T Kuchi, H Dess, L Mullen, J Gardner, S Bartz, F Tehrani, M Lo, T Glynn, K Hartman, J Shepard, J Niessen, R Womack, K Denda, P Piermatti, M Fetzer

• Agenda Adopted. Jane noted that she might bring food for the meeting at times but that the Admin Team will always provide coffee and tea.

• Minutes of Dec. Meeting Approved

• Exploratory Committee Update
  • Subsequent to the meeting, it was clarified that Furmanski will be meeting with Marianne for an annual budget update. Discussion ensued on the potentially bad impression left by the fact we have so many lines open and why.
  • AUL Search is moving along. J Boyle is soliciting nominations of candidates of potential applicants.
  • Several points were made which are listed below:
    • We need to tie positions to our strategic plan.
    • If we are able to operate without the open lines, do we need them?
    • Exploratory Comm. is discussing positions rather than job descriptions.
    • There were 11 responses to the survey of needed positions.
    • We need further discussion at our next meeting.
    • Note that positions were frozen as a way for the library to keep operating
    • It was felt that the dual position of AUL or RIS vs. NBL Director is going forward in a very mush way.
    • We need to move forward in the interim whether or not the search for the new AUL is successful.
    • There was concern related to how NB interacts with Camden and Newark.
    • We need to talk about what we want to do whether or not the AUL search is successful.
    • We need some specific things that we’re ready to move forward on.
    • There is a certain malaise in not having our own NBL director. Our voice has been diminished.
    • NBLF has been marginalized. We are not involved in what is going on centrally in RUL. We are not clued in. It appears that we only have a say in promotion and tenure.
    • Leadership within NBL is difficult as it is seen often as an add-on to position responsibilities (e.g. NBISSG chair).
    • Need compelling reasons for new lines.
    • Big differences in leadership of NBL and leadership within the libraries.
    • Look at our vision and mission and prioritize our goals and needs.
    • At our next meeting we need to look to prioritize positions for NBL.
    • Temporary librarians within NBL – without them there is an overload of workflow and faculty responsibilities.
    • Who is going to step up to leadership positions and who is going to fill in the gaps?
    • It might be effective to show what we cannot do – missed opportunities due to lack of positions.
    • We have lost our critical mass within NBL.
    • We need to define the roles of NBL and define who we are. What is the future of NBL? Of NBLF vs. RIS.
    • We need to be more specific and what the problems are within NBL – evidence of the lack or leadership, evidence of our environment and what is not working. Jane will begin collecting some of this evidence.
    • Need to discuss the results of the Exploratory Comm. Survey at our next meeting.
    • Look at other universities and what they have been able to accomplish recently. Review missed opportunities in comparison with peer institutions.
    • Look at the impact of other units on the workings of NBL such as Cataloging and some of the broader support issues.
  • Suggested next step: Prepare a white paper on the condition of NBL and missed opportunities.

• NBISSG – no report

• Access Services Update – J Gardner
  • Staff position at physics library has been redesigned to include both the chemistry and physics libraries. One staff line will move to LSM.
  • March 15/16 – multi-institutional access services symposium is being hosted at RUL. R. Smith is chairing the effort.
  • We are looking for a new ILL system and leaning towards OCLC. Our current system must be replaced by July 1.
  • Article requests will move out of IRIS and be integrated into document delivery and ILL.
  • Long lost and overdue items are going to Collections. Next step is to the university delinquent accounts office. For informational purposes, Judy is sending out of a copy of the letter sent.
  • This past year has seen a balancing out between our borrowing and lending.
  • There will be access to E-Z Borrow from within IRIS
  • Goal is move towards increased transparency for users in terms of requesting book and journal articles, choosing between E-Z Borrow, Article Delivery, and ILL.

• Directors Report – F Tehrani speaking for F Puniello
  • Remember that when candidates come to campus that it are not only we evaluating them but they are also evaluating us. Important to show up at open library meetings with candidates.
  • Budget – we had to chop 100K from below the line, as we there were an overage of 100K from the gift funds. There was concern that there was not a fail-safe for this. F. Puniello will clarify what happened.
  • New media lab at Douglass is moving forward and going out for bid.
  • Four group study rooms for Kilmer are under consideration. Also looking at the Math Library.
  • Started fund raising for preservation issues – 100K in the fund so far.
  • Voucher expenses are on target.

• Announcements
  • J. Shepard reported from CDC that Bob Sewell has found money to fund 6 additional weeks for the approval plan. Another 200K are needed to keep the approval plan until the end of the fiscal year.
  • L Mullen noted that Searchlight would be up beginning March 12.
  • Travel budget – J Sloan noted that funds are being bumped to $300 for tenured and to $600 for non-tenured librarians. M Kesselman noted that NBL travel budget is on target.
  • RU-CORE will be on the agenda for the next RUL Faculty Meeting as well as the Scholarly Communication Panel for RUL and there is nothing to discuss now but we will come back with discussions for the next NBLF meeting.