Minutes of Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Meeting

M. Fetzer, R. Gardner, M. Gaunt, T. Glynn, S. Harrington (recorder), T. Haynes, L. Langschied, M. Li, J. Mardikian, M. Page, V. Pelote (for R. Tipton for K.N. Au), H. Perez-Gilbe, A. Tallau

K.N. Au, R. Tipton, M. Wilson
L. Vazquez

The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m.



1. The agenda was adopted as submitted.

2. The minutes of the January 30, 2002 Coordinating Committee meeting approved as submitted.

3. Old Business

a. "A New Framework for RUL based on the DLI" (A. Tallau, Planning Committee)

The "New Framework" document is designed to enumerate the tasks and responsibilities of the Libraries. The finished document is intended to better prepare RUL to undertake new responsibilities, multiply efforts, and cope with the changes that new responsibilities necessitate. Since the written "New Framework" report uses the Digital Library Initiative (DLI) as a point of departure, it incorporates quotes taken directly from the DLI document. The Planning Committee has divided RUL responsibilities into four major categories, as follows: information services, material services, availability services, and structural services. The members of the Coordinating Committee were asked to ensure that all organizational responsibilities have been included in the "New Framework" document.

Each of the four categories outlined in the document were individually reviewed and discussed. Some of the main points of discussion that emerged in each category were:

Information Services:

Material Services:

Availability Services:

Structural Services:

Overall comments on the document were also offered. It is crucial to consider what potential software packages may provide system-wide solutions to tasks currently completed on project-by-project basis, thereby eliminating duplication of effort. It is also important to consider how the current budgetary situation will affect human resources, RUL priorities, and the tasks outlined in "A New Framework" in the near future. The Planning Committee will meet again to discuss and revise the document, and invites comment from the faculty via email.

b. Procedures for Filling Open or Newly Created Library Faculty Positions

This streamlined document is largely the same as the one reviewed by the Coordinating Committee six months ago. Coordinating Committee members discussed the document, and a few editorial or cosmetic changes were offered. The more substantial content-related comments included:

The revised and edited "Procedures for Filling Open or Newly Created Library Faculty Positions" will come to the full faculty for discussion at the June 7, 2002 RUL Faculty meeting.

c. Guidelines for Reading Committee including Definition of Refereed Journals

The Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (PPAAC) has recently reviewed and discussed the criteria and referee process for defining a refereed journal for librarianship. The issue is controversial, and no uniform agreement exists between, or even within, scholarly disciplines. A study published in the Journal of Higher Education in 1984 outlined twelve criteria for determining if a journal is refereed. However, the advent and importance of electronic journals has further complicated the matter. Additionally, it is crucial to consider the role of high impact journals in the library field regardless of their editorial status.

It was also noted that while the Ulrich's Periodicals Directory does list the referee status of journals, this is self-reported based on no criteria or standard. It was suggested that one might consult the journal guidelines for contributors printed within the front matter of the journal for fullest information. However, it was noted that some journals fail to clearly define their editorial processes, and may even apply different criteria to articles published within the same issue. Committee members debated the responsibility of the article author in querying the editor in order to determine the referee status of the journal, versus the role and responsibilities of the members of the Reading Committee. It was pointed out that the ambiguities surrounding the definition of a referred journal must be clarified in conjunction with a fuller definition of statements on the 1-L form. PPAAC members will continue their discussion on this subject and will return to the Coordinating Committee with a baseline definition of a refereed journal for further evaluation. PPAAC members welcome faculty input on this difficult issue.

4. New Business

There was no new business.

5. Report of the University Librarian


The current temporary budget requires an approximately $500,000 giveback, most of which can be accounted for by salary savings from currently frozen lines. An acute problem, however, is the approximately $850,000 in collections money for next year that will most likely be unavailable. During their all-day retreat, Cabinet developed a variety of scenarios for dealing with this situation, including pre-paying "big ticket" items for next year or rolling over funds to balance the large deficit between two fiscal years. A combination of options may be pursued, including dividing cuts between collections and staffing. (Staffing cuts would be accomplished by reducing certain open faculty lines to the lowest dollar amount required to keep the line within the Libraries.) It is hoped that lost collections monies will be recouped over a longer period of time. While considerable cuts will have to take place this year, every attempt will be made so that the impact of the budget situation will be as palatable as possible. All possibilities will be explored.

6. Other (Committee, Council, and Campus Reports)

7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sara Harrington
RUL Faculty Secretary

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_02_02_27.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries