University Librarian's Cabinet: Minutes of the February 23, 2010 Meeting

Agnew, Boyle, Cvetkovic, Fetzer, Fredenburg, Fultz, Gardner, Gaunt, Golden, Puniello, Sewell
Videoconferenced: Winston
Nancy Hendrickson

University Librarian's Report Gaunt

Have gotten our new Science Direct contract; we now have to have BOG approvals for any contracts over $1M. Boyle will review with General Counsel.

On Thursday evening President McCormick will hold an open forum for students at the RUSA meeting. At the meeting, he will share with students the responses to the concerns they raised in November. Gaunt will attend the meeting to answer any questions related to the Libraries.

At Gaunt's planning meeting with Executive Vice President Furmanski, they discussed preservation data and the University's interest. He mentioned that he had been discussing this with Michael Pazzani, Vice President for Research and Graduate and Professional Education. Gaunt and Pazzani then met to discuss this and "The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery." Pazzani indicated his willingness to set up a working group and bring in people that will include the Libraries, OIT, and research faculty to discuss common interests in this area.

Deferred allocations for URA-AFT employees have been sent to unit heads by regular mail; your figures are due to Gaunt by March 8. Status of MPSC staff is not known at this time.

Budget Update and Wish List Review Gaunt

At a meeting of the Deans Council on Friday, units were notified of mid-year cuts based on the Governor's announcement that the mid-year cut to the University would be $18.5M, or 6.3%. The amounts assigned to units varies from the lowest (academic), middle (academic support), and highest (administrative units). The Libraries' target is approximately 3% ($750K) but we are awaiting an exact figure. It will come from salary savings accrued on the frozen staff/faculty vacancies. We need to produce a report for Executive VP Furmanski on the impact by March 1. This is not a permanent return of funds, but next year's cut will be permanent. Despite this return we do expect to have some year-end funds, and we are prioritizing how they will be spent to ameliorate a major cut next fiscal year.

Gaunt reviewed with Cabinet the wish list that had been submitted by units. We will make early payments on the same items as last year. The facilities list is very long and varies from smaller items (less than $5K) to higher items at $600K. Some items are estimated and others (construction) do not yet have costs, but the list demonstrates significant needs. In reviewing these items, there are some things that campus facilities should be doing, and others we may try to fund through foundation grants or external fund raising. Cabinet agreed that it might be best to give the units a target amount and let each of them determine priorities within the funding available. Fredenburg, Hendrickson and Gaunt will review the list and try to determine realistic allocations. Robeson will not be included this go around since there are many campus projects being completed, but will be included the next time. If there is something that is a unit priority without a cost estimate, please send that information to Gaunt as soon as possible.

Sewell noted that a list of one-time costs for collections is in preparation by the selectors/LRC, and asked whether there would be an allocation for that. Gaunt responded that the list needs to be prepared as quickly as possible for consideration.

Organizational Review Update - Winston

Winston reported that each of the review teams has developed a draft report with recommendations. The steering committee reviewed those reports and will provide feedback to each review team to ensure they have answered all questions posed to them. There are two things the steering committee is discussing recommendations on the process, and structure for organizational reviews going forward. There are two issues how well the process and structure has worked and how well the steering committee has worked. Questions and concerns with review teams have been the short timeline, which created challenges for review teams; the size of the review teams too large in some cases; and a question of training and how they were prepared for their work. Our goal in team composition was to have a review team of experts and for the chair to be someone not in the area but someone who could facilitate; will make a recommendation as to whether that structure is most effective. In terms of the steering committee, we will focus on how closely the steering committee can work with the review teams. They are to be as available as needed. The final report will include recommendations on a structure that is most effective, as well as the process. Gaunt noted that Cabinet can discuss the organizational review at more than one meeting, with the overview of the process at one and the individual reports at another.

Target of Opportunity - Gaunt

As part of its diversity initiative and in keeping with sound personnel practices, the Libraries intend to embark on a three-year plan, beginning July 1, 2010 through July 1, 2012, to recruit Target of Opportunity hires under the University's existing program. The Libraries propose to make one Target of Opportunity hire in each of the three years of our plan with one hire on each campus. Our method for selection is simple. The Libraries matches one of its identified needs for specific expertise with an outstanding or potentially outstanding library professional from an under-represented group. These professionals will be recruited using tools such as professional contacts, participation in focused library leadership programs, or national or regional visibility in the profession. Over the past two years the Libraries have identified the following areas of expertise as both necessary and beneficial to its future: Digital Archives Creation, Outreach Services, Science Liaison-Newark Campus, and Web 2.0-Camden Campus and then identified professionals who possess the educational and experiential credentials to fill our needs for expertise in the areas listed above. The Libraries have also identified succession planning as a need on the staff side and have identified a potentially strong candidate in that area. Gaunt asked those Cabinet members who identified target of opportunity hires and identified professionals to review their submission both the position and potential candidate(s). Three positions were identified as priorities for the future of the libraries: digital archivist, science librarian for Newark, and Web 2.0 librarian. There was some discussion of how each position was characterized and the importance of insuring it was described as a library faculty position rather than a technologist. Each of these positions was characterized as being important to the growth of the libraries focused on areas where there is need, and positions that could provide leadership across the three campuses. Gaunt asked a small group consisting of Fetzer, Gardner, Golden, Cvetkovic and Winston to rewrite the Web 2.0 position with a focus on user research and instructional support using digital media for Cabinet review in two weeks. Winston suggested involving the ethnographic study. Boyle will make available to the group the Libraries' instructional technology development librarian position for review in rewriting the description. Gaunt will talk to Executive VP Furmanski about strategies for support over the next few years.

Cabinet Retreat Boyle, Fredenburg, Winston

Boyle, Fredenburg, and Winston discussed with Cabinet their proposal for a two-day retreat for permanent cabinet members with a facilitator. Retreat objectives would be to strengthen Cabinet leadership, reinforce collective understanding of the Libraries' Mission and Vision, and reinforce values of service and collegiality as well as Cabinet's role of informed influence. Questions to be answered would be how we ensure that Cabinet is aligned on a strategy for implementing the Libraries' Mission and Vision, and how we ensure that Cabinet is aligned with councils and committees and other groups on roles and strategies within the Libraries.

Timing is right to plan such a retreat our current strategic plan is ending and we need to plan for the future; the economic environment will be providing challenges for the longer term and we are looking at an organizational review to assist with efficiencies; and we will be recruiting a new senior position to Cabinet in the future AUL/RIS position. After some discussion it was agreed that the focus of the retreat will be on leadership, communication, and team building for the future, insuring that all Cabinet members are aligned with the strategic vision of the Libraries and on strategies for achieving them. The context is faculty and administrative structures coming together focused on our shared values and vision for the future. Following the Cabinet retreat it was proposed that we also conduct a leadership retreat with the chairs of the leadership groups within the Libraries.

Gaunt suggested that based on the comments that came from the discussion of the proposed retreat, Winston, Boyle and Fredenburg should amend the original outline to articulate the key themes/topics/questions identified and discuss it with the facilitator to determine the amount of time that it might take to cover the work. Timing for the retreat would depend on the availability of a facilitator, but aiming for April or May. It would be one or two days, and not held in the Libraries possibly at the campus centers or other university facility.

Update of Diversity Recruitment Task Force Fredenburg

The task force, appointed by Gaunt, has met once already and has another meeting scheduled for March 4. They are looking at our existing procedures for recruitment and the language in the APPs. They will work with PPAAC related to existing faculty procedures. They expect their report to be produced in the time frame end of April.



Cvetkovic reported on recent Planning and Coordinating Committee activities. Most of the by-law changes brought forth by Rules of Procedure have been implemented. At the February faculty meeting the Committee for Scholarly Communication was added to the by-laws as a standing committee. Recommended changes to the by-laws about the membership composition of the two Councils have been tabled for this academic year. The current Councils both felt they wanted to utilize the existing membership structures for the remainder of the academic year in order to assess properly how well they work.

A task force of Planning and Coordinating has been looking into details about setting up a RUL faculty blog and are working with James Hartstein; hope to have by next Cabinet meeting.

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