Minutes of Coordinating Committee Meeting for the Nov. 15, 2000 meeting

Au, Calhoun, Consoli, Gaunt, Hancock, Haynes, Marker, P.Page, Sak, Tipton, Weber, Wilson, Womack
> Langschied, Mardikian, Olin


  1. Minutes of the October 25 meeting were approved as submitted.
  2. No old business.
  3. New business:
    1. Follow-up discussion on MIS/MLS program (Gaunt):

      Gaunt opened discussion of the presentation at the 11/10 RUL faculty meeting on MIS v. MLS by Kay Vandergrift and Claire McInerney from SCILS. She distributed copies from their PowerPoint slides comparing the two types of degree programs. While it is clear that there are similarities, the context is different. The Committee asked for clarification about the Management of Information Science degree–could this refer to an undergraduate degree also? Weber responded that the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Line Use was specifically referring to the ALA-accredited MIS (Master's in Information Systems) degree in their report. The MIS degree is more quantifiable and relies on financial data, while the Management of Information Science degree has more of a content basis like the MLS. In the MIS program outcomes are measurable, but this is not generally so for the MLS program. Womack attended UNC when their MIS program was just getting started; although the MIS courses were not the same as the MLS program (more computer context in MIS), they were parallel. Some concern was voiced that the MLS curriculum was being incorporated into the MIS program, and the result would be that many librarians would not be trained to do the things we need. Currently there are only two schools (UNC and Indiana) that have ALA-accredited MIS programs. SCILS is in the process of revising their curriculum to put more emphasis on the modern technological environment. They are changing their degree to a Master's in Library and Information Science. Not all current RUL librarians have actual MLS degrees, but have similar titles and are ALA-accredited. The committee agreed that ALA accreditation should be the standard (since this should imply a library orientation) and that RUL should accept any library/information science master's degree that has ALA accreditation. PPAAC will notify the Human Resources Office to make this change in future position postings.

    2. Progress reports:

      Research Leave Review Committee (Tipton): RLRC is meeting in early December to review the Program Reinvention Opportunity Project (PROP) and its possible relationship to the SRA program. PROP was suggested by the Public Services Council as a way to provide release time for librarians in order to pursue projects that contribute toward the development of the digital library. Cabinet has made some revisions in the original proposal, and Gaunt will distribute latest draft to Coordinating Committee. Au is working on a special project to develop a library module on e-College; this was not a PROP but is a good example of the type of project that might be considered. Should we develop a systematized structure for PROP? RLRC will review and bring recommendations back to the committee at next meeting.

      Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (Marker): Committee has begun work on revising library personnel documents. They are working on two forms: Procedures for Filling Open and Newly Created Library Positions (RUL document) and the Library Faculty Position Review Form (from Gaunt). The committee had some confusion regarding the various bodies that review positions–do these reviews happen concurrently or sequentially, and if sequentially who goes first? The current official procedure when a vacancy occurs is for the University Librarian, Faculty Coordinator, Chair of Planning Committee, Libraries Personnel Officer, and Unit Librarian to meet to discuss the location/relocation/revamping of the open line and budget implications. In actual practice the Unit Librarian works with the unit faculty to create the APP. This is sent to the University Librarian, who refers it to the Planning Committee and the Faculty Coordinator for review (within 5 days) before making a final decision. Gaunt stated that what she needs to know early-on is whether the appropriate people have been consulted and that there is justification for the position as written. There was general agreement that the Planning Committee should be involved at an earlier stage in this process. They should be looking at overall current and future needs of the faculty–what changes we may need and what lines and activities we should preserve. They should continue to review open lines and judge their allocation against these overall needs. It may be unnecessary for the Faculty Coordinator and the Planning Committee to do separate reviews, especially considering the short turnaround time required. PPAAC will incorporate this feedback into their review of the documents and will report back to the Coordinating Committee. Gaunt will remind the Human Resources Office to notify Planning Committee within 10 days of a faculty resignation.

      Scholarly and Professional Activity Committee (Womack): Have begun working with tenured faculty to solicit input on mentoring activities. Committee will meet soon to discuss.

    3. Committee reports:

      Public Services Council (Weber): Last meeting was 10/26. Montanaro showed samples of cataloging records from Early English Books Online. Smulewitz will attend 11/30 meeting to make presentation on MARC holdings.

      Newark Campus (Au): Sixth Annual Book Arts Symposium was a success. Holding book and record sale at end of month.

      Technical Services Council (TSC): The 96,000 records from Early English Books Online will be loaded in late November/early December. Cataloging for Showalter collection is completed. Montanaro announced she needs to replace 500 PCs. Held discussion on emerging standards of metadata.

      Research Leave Review Committee (Tipton): Beginning the busy season for applications (SRA and FASP). Meeting in December to discuss PROP.

      Scholarly and Professional Activities Committee (Womack): Will hold a forum on exhibits sometime in December.

      New Brunswick Campus (Hancock, Wilson): NBL is holding one-day retreat in January. Theme is "Putting the User at the Center." In preparation, faculty are working in groups to create possible responses to various scenarios.

      Camden Campus (Haynes): Camden's response to book sales has been to hold these spontaneously when there are too many gift books.

    4. Report of the University Librarian (Gaunt):

      There is a new entity called the New Jersey Coastal Communiversity being developed. The idea was proposed and is being managed by Brookdale Community College. It would be housed at a site in Monmouth County where New Jersey colleges and universities could offer distance education courses as part of degree programs. There are still many issues to be resolved–for example, if credits are offered through the participating institutions, whose students are they? If students are taking Rutgers courses, what type of library services should they be entitled to? More on this as it develops.

      V.Calderhead attended a conference on e-books in Washington and has agreed to do a brown bag lunch. Date and time to be announced.

    5. Other (Wilson): Proposal to cancel the 12/13 meeting sincethe Coordinating Committee has no pressing business and committees can use the extra time to work on ongoing projects/reports (as described above). Unanimous agreement. Next meeting 1/17/01; committees should have reports ready.
    6. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
    7. Respectfully submitted,
      Penny Page

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_00_11_15.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries