University Librarian's Cabinet: Minutes of the January 29, 2008 Meeting

Agnew, Au, Boyle, Denda, Dent, Fredenburg, Fultz, Gaunt, Jones, Joseph, Puniello, Zapcic
Sewell, Golden

University Librarian's Report Gaunt

Gaunt discussed with Cabinet President McCormick's letter about faculty cluster hiring; each academic year, for at least the next five years, McCormick will invite proposals from deans and provosts for Faculty Diversity Cluster Hires-groups of three, four, or even five faculty of the highest quality who would come to Rutgers as a group or "cluster," and whose addition to our faculty ranks would strategically and significantly increase the diversification of our scholarship and pedagogy. Such hires might be all in one department or, more likely, would cross departmental or even school or campus lines. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary proposals would receive particular consideration. The Office of the President will provide half the salary of each faculty member in the cluster for their first three years at Rutgers; we need to identify how the line we have will support more than just working in the libraries; instruction is a really good example; the obvious splitting of a line would be with SCILS; we need a template of the normal things we do; think about the positions and adding specialized things; this is something we could give to our search committees. Fredenburg, Joseph, and Denda will work together to develop a hiring template so we can capitalize on the money President McCormick is putting forward.

Executive Vice President Furmanski is asking for recommendations for a committee that looks at the issues of work and family and what we are doing to support families at Rutgers; this is part of the AAUP and AFT agreement; Gaunt plans to nominate Fredenburg for the committee. This will be a large committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students; if Cabinet has other recommendations, Gaunt will send them in; would like to receive any recommendations by February 1.

Update on NJKI: we are still unsure about continued funding and are lobbying legislators who might be able to get a restoration of funding. Based on your input for the VALE straw vote, I decided to keep the RefUSA for the time being. We canceled our only business directory - D&B - when we got RefUSA for free. This meant that we would not have any business directory if RefUSA was canceled. Rather than try to go back to D&B for the short term, it would be easier to keep RefUSA and decide as of July 1 what we should do. I also said no to EBSCO Medline, since we already have Ovid Medline. This is just a straw vote, so we'll get refined pricing soon based on everyone's position. We also chose at the high end of costs.

Mid-Year Reports: will send an email out today or tomorrow about the format for mid-year reports; consider it your pre-annual report; Boyle will also provide a goals chart to follow; your reports will be used in my accountability meeting with Executive Vice President Furmanski; reports are due March 15.

The NIH policy was passed and we now will be dealing with our faculty sending their publications to PubMed Central; Vice President Pazzani wants us to be involved in the process; trying to set up a time to talk to him. Our issue will be copyright and faculty's concerns as to whether they can or cannot do this; talked to a couple of deans and associate deans and they are very interested in this and happy the library will be engaging. A lot of faculty need educated; we have time to get our program going with the intent of getting publications in our repository and moving them over to PubMed.

What will help us is that the ARL steering committee on public policies has called together a group that is meeting tomorrow in DC; six different VPs for research, reps from NASAULG, and the AAU, university attorneys and librarians at those institutions to address how libraries can help to move this agenda forward; what we do will be informed by those discussions to support our ability to be able to do this; will be hearing from that group fairly soon.

Budget Status Report - Fredenburg/Hendrickson

Gaunt walked Cabinet through the expected outcomes from the budget discussions; there are few action items - decide on the reclassification requests; do we have enough money to proceed with the group we have now? If all were successful, this is the amount of money we'd like to spend - can we? The other is to look at the trends in our expenditures; what might we want to do with the money we will have this year; see the trends in salary savings; think about things we might want to do this year if we have money.

Fredenburg and Hendrickson distributed the following documents to Cabinet for review: Reserve Salary $'s FY 2008 as of January 29, 2008, Salary Reclassification Requests FY 2008, RUL State & Non-State Funds Available FY 2005-FY-2008, RUL State Funds Expenditure Analyses FY 2005-FY 2008, RUL State Funds Expenditures Analyses Other Services FY 2005-FY 2008, FY 2008 Below-the- Line Analyses Summary as of December 31, 2008, FY 2008 Vacant Lines as of January 25, 2008, and Salary Savings History FY-2005-FY2008.

Gaunt noted that before 2005, the University had rules on what could be done with salary savings; could only be used with people; now it can be used for voucher support, supplies, equipment, and collections; typically we have returned 50% of salary savings to you and kept the remaining for equipment and capital improvements and a "wish list." Would like you to send to Hendrickson by March 1 things you would like to come from the Central allocation; a decision will made at a second Cabinet meeting; keep in mind that what we buy this year might be bought in anticipation of next year's budget cuts; one thing we cannot use this money for is subscriptions; this is one time money; not carried over in coming years.; Dent asked if the methodology for coming up with purchases should be tied to the strategic plan; Gaunt reiterated that Cabinet would certainly be strategic in its decision-making, and it would make it easier if you are strategic in what you put forward. Sewell will lead any discussion related to collections. Hendrickson reminded Cabinet that in doing their wish list, things should be prioritized; Hendrickson's office will provide assistance if needed related to pricing. Council can ask for feedback in the system-wide areas; units will decide how to use their own salary savings; no unit can easily buy back frozen lines; the only way is to take operating funds. Right now we have 15.08 positions frozen. If you have questions, contact Fredenburg or Hendrickson; will be discussing the budget for the rest of the semester; reclasses will be done by March 1. Hendrickson will be sending out the budget spreadsheets for you to do your projected expenditures on below-the-line accounts so we can figure out if units will have money left; will include salary savings. Gaunt thanked Fredenburg and Hendrickson for pulling together all of the information for today's meeting.

Area Report for Digital Library Systems - Agnew

Agnew distributed to Cabinet a hand-out; she will post it on the Sakai site; Agnew noted that TAS is on a creative teeter totter - they purchase and catalog, and remain heavily in the analog world; they are always trying to balance in their role and moving the library to the 21st century; they have five departments, and six, if you include administration. Agnew reiterated that TAS serves the technology and information acquisition and management needs of the Rutgers University Libraries and its users; these twin goals are accomplished through five departments; Acquisitions, Cataloging and Metadata Services, Distributed Technical Services, Scholarly Communication Center, and Systems. TAS bases its work on some core principles: standardization and economies of scale, to provide consistent, efficient services; integration for both services and resources to ultimately provide a streamlined, integrated approach to information and agility - developing flexible services that enable the other RUL departments, particularly public services and collection development, to use services and resources creatively to serve the libraries' users. Some highlights of their work that reflect these principles are:

Gaunt thanked Agnew for the wonderful report -including the written report distributed to Cabinet.

Wrap-up - Jones

Although this was not an agenda with many items, there were specific things Jones wanted to comment on; she picked up where we left off at the last Cabinet meeting with the discussion about stuck teams. As a follow-up, there were a couple of things that came out, which Jones sent in an email; She encouraged the whole group to take responsibility and accountability for the group process and explained that it would be helpful for everyone to see themselves as a facilitator and as one being facilitated so the chair isn't always constantly re-facilitating. Another thing is to share the responsibility individually as the agenda becomes more robust and facilitate your own portion of the meeting; practice playing that role and share responsibility in a more structured way.

Stuck Teams:

As happens with group dynamics, at times it is typical for teams to have a loss in energy, focus; maybe there was a significant change in membership or loss of leader, or your charge is ambiguous; whatever the reason, sometimes teams get to a place where they are stuck; they've been together too long; if it's informational, they meet in order to share things that could be shared in other formats. If and when those things happen, how do we get out of that stuck mode? There are indirect and direct methods. We need to shake up the assumptions and ask why were having these meetings. Do we need all these meetings; what is the purpose; is this the most effective way to get our work done? Sometimes you have to step back and revisit the purpose, approach, and underlying assumptions; handouts, etc. are indirect ways to deal with assumptions. Another way is to go for a small win; to help a group find its "mojo" again. People don't see themselves as a team if they aren't producing something together. What can we do to help this group feel a sense of accomplishment? Some other ways of doing this is to have facilitation training; teams get stuck because of personality basics. When we get new members on a team, this is a place where we need to back up, start over, and look at the fundamentals before moving forward; discuss how we'd like to exist; what are our goals, and what are the roles we're going to play together? If these are places you have stuck teams, and there is a personality issue, this is the place where you need to have a one on one conversation. Everyone should be excited to participate and feel a sense of ownership. Gaunt noted that sometimes we have to take a step back and take a fresh look at those things. She thanked Jones for attending the Cabinet meetings and for the observations she has made regarding the group dynamics.

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries