University Librarian's Cabinet: Minutes of the December 13, 2011 Meeting

Boyle, Cvetkovic (VC), Fetzer, Fultz, Gaunt, Izbicki, Niessen, Puniello, Winston (VC), Womack
Agnew, Fredenburg

University Librarian's Report - Gaunt

Merger discussions are continuing; Gaunt will report later in the agenda.

Deans Council: We are not allowed to use state money for out-of-state travel; whether you are being reimbursed for travel, paid by someone else, or using your own money, everyone's out-of-state travel must be approved. Normally this is done through a travel reimbursement form; the state expects to know and we have to show approval. When Fredenburg returns, we will discuss how to assure it is happening. Cabinet may want to decide how they want to handle their own people

Public Services Update - Fetzer

Fetzer gave an update on her area, which included a link to RIS Annual Reports for 2009/10 and 2010/11, selected public service initiatives since September 2009, a description of the New Brunswick Libraries faculty and staff, the AUL-RIS meeting schedule, and groups reporting to AUL-RIS. She also distributed an organizational chart for her area. She noted that this will be beneficial for the new AUL/RIS when she comes on board, which highlights the importance of everyone documenting their own jobs. Boyle asked where the Secure Data Facility is. It is a single computer for accessing data that contains personal information and it is located in a small specially keyed room within the Microforms Room at Alexander Library. The key for the room is kept separate from any other key. Womack has already met with Janice Pilch regarding formalizing policies for the computer. Boyle questioned whether we still have a WAC group; Fetzer noted she has not seen any activity. Any groups that are out of date should be updated on the Web site. Winston questioned the process for policy making, specifically the food and drink policy that was just revised, which is now different than Dana's food and drink policy. Fetzer said that USC has charged several task forces, receives reports from them and they are reviewed by USC, which includes representatives from Robeson and Dana; recommendations evolve through User Services Council; items that are considered broad in scope are brought to Cabinet. Policy setting is always in consultation with appropriate groups. Gaunt noted that language change in a policy is fine, but if changing the substance and all units are to adhere to it, it should come to Cabinet. Gaunt indicated that Cabinet members should decide whether a policy should come to Cabinet - is it really a policy that needs to be discussed here, will it apply to all units, and if so, it should be vetted here. This will be an agenda item for the next Cabinet meeting.

Occupy Movements - Puniello

Because of the recent occupy movements, Puniello discussed her experience several years ago when students came to the Douglass Library and refused to leave for several days. The agreement was not to create confrontation. As long as they didn't disturb other students, they were allowed to stay. We notified the dean of students and the police. This was not a policy; it was a onetime occurrence. Gaunt noted that this is a campus security issue and should be decided at the time of what is happening where we contact the university. Boyle likes the idea of treating it as a student life issue before calling RUPD, and wonders if student life already has something in place. Winston noted that an occupy group could be a combination of students and outsiders, so there is a student affairs piece and a security issue. Puniello will follow up with VP Blimling and debrief at the next meeting. It would be good for us to have a process for what we would do if necessary.

Strategic Planning Update - Boyle

Boyle shared with Cabinet the revised strategic activities list, which now includes 60 proposed activities. The task for this meeting was to determine what the final plan should look like. Cabinet was given two models for the report structure - one a bulleted format, and the other a more expansive text format. Both are more general than the information we have gathered. Boyle asked whether the bullet format is the way to move forward. Comments were that the bulleted list allows an overview and invites ownership, the larger planning spreadsheet shows the things we need to do to move forward and is also needed, language could use more review, a clean layout would give a clearer picture; more work needs to be done in completing the information for some key activities. Some objectives like building collections aggressively and funding are givens and do not have a meaning in a strategic sense until activities are specified, while some activities need conveners and timelines. Boyle said that some of the fleshing out could be done as part of Phase IV. We are supposed to have another draft by the end of the month that will be available for comments.

Gaunt noted that we have agreed that we like the LYRASIS format, and she proposed that Cabinet volunteers tackle each of the five areas and consolidate, edit, and/or flesh out as needed. Niessen and Womack will take 1, Fetzer and Izbicki will take 2, Puniello and Gaunt will take 3, Boyle will take 4, and Cvetkovic and Winston will take 5. Could the group flesh out any orphans with who you think might tackle them if you think we should retain it. Winston suggested we use a track changes model so we have a sense of the original and revised. Gaunt said that we are looking at what comes under each major heading; where there are orphans that could come back as "I don't think we should have it" or it should go under a key step or something else. Does it deserve a bullet? Where we have language, are these actions that are actually saying something? Improve collections in all formats is not a strategic goal; opt for more wording; if I was doing that section, that's what I'd bring back. Comments will be given to Boyle by Monday. We are making the description specific and actionable; a sense of what was meant by it, and who would be involved. Boyle will put together something like the LYRASIS Strategic Plan.

Merger Planning Update - Gaunt

Gaunt noted that a committee composed jointly of Rutgers and RWJ librarians has been formed, and divided into core teams for each strategic area. Gaunt and Judith Cohn, UMDNJ are co-chairs of the committee. The teams may call on any other staff for input as needed. The teams are small, as we will be reporting on progress every two weeks. Each team will select its convener and commence its work on an appropriate schedule.

During the first meeting of the committee it was decided to have a meeting for RUL whereby UMDNJ/RWJ librarians and staff discuss the operations and services of a medical library to educate us about the new area we may be adding and serving. Similarly, we should have a session for the RWJ librarians and staff about the organization of the Rutgers libraries and the work we are doing. We will try to have the meetings before the end of January, if possible. We talked about communication and what we will be able to communicate beyond our committee. Since there has been no legislation announced or a merger approved, we should not be making any announcements beyond the Libraries at this stage. We will report progress internally. Any communication related to the merger is to come from the university communication team. The other is because there are a lot of legalities associated with this, many of the things can't happen until the merger takes place. Much of our planning will depend on what can be implemented before. Izbicki expressed concern about talking to the vendors; Gaunt noted that those discussions must be cleared by the university committee before we can have them.


Gaunt: You are all invited to the dedication of the Jayceryll Malabuyoc De Chavez LC'99 Conference Room and Alpha Kappa Psi Study Rooms at Kilmer Library on Friday, December 16.

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