Minutes of Wednesday, September 25, 2002 meeting

K. Denda, M. Fetzer, M. Gaunt, T. Glynn, S. Harrington (recorder), T. Haynes, R. Jantz, M. Kesselman, L. Langschied, R. Marker, K. Mulcahy, M. Page, R. Tipton
A. Watkins



1. The agenda was adopted as submitted.

2. The minutes of the April 17, 2002 Coordinating Committee meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Old Business

a. Review of Previous Year’s Items

Definition of Peer-Reviewed Journals

The Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee submitted Revised Draft Guidelines for Refereed Journals for librarianship. The draft definition is largely aimed at tenure/promotion candidates and unit directors. The task was a complex one: PPAAC members looked through online journals, and committee members were given assignments to compare, for example, what the ARL directory stated with what the status of a journal really was. Notes were compiled on the various permutations of “peer reviewed” and the variety of ways in which the editorial process was expressed or left vague or implicit. It was felt that using existing sources was preferable to trying to develop still another list of peer reviewed journals. Language was added to the guidelines to address situations in which only certain articles or sections of a journal are peer-reviewed. It was also stated that articles invited or solicited for a particular journal would be considered to be subject to the same criteria as unsolicited manuscripts. It remains the candidate’s and unit director’s ultimate responsibility to demonstrate whether or not a published article has been peer reviewed. Explanations that explain or contextualize certain publications in particular situations could be added to the CDR. While the guidelines produced by PPAAC are largely for candidates and unit directors, it was noted that reading committees might benefit from them. The development of guidance and/or guidelines for reading committees will be an upcoming agenda item for PPAAC. In conclusion, the Coordinating Committee endorsed PPAAC’s Revised Draft Guidelines for Refereed Journals. The guidelines will be presented to the faculty at the next RUL faculty meeting.

Planning Committee Report on the DLI

The Planning Committee will hold a meeting on the afternoon of September 25, 2002 and will conduct a full discussion on the report on the DLI.

Librarianship Evaluation Criteria

In May 2002 a memo was sent to the Associate University Librarians asking for the Councils to consider and develop a series of questions that could be used to determine excellence in librarianship in each respective area. The responses are due November 15, 2002. Council representatives present at the Coordinating Committee meeting stated that discussions on the topic had been held, or were slated to take place.

b. Guidelines for Short Research Assignments (SRAs)

The Research Leave Review Committee will review the Short Research Assignment guidelines. In the interim, a brief discussion of the Short Research Assignments in the Coordinating Committee underscored the value of SRAs for faculty members. A major issue remains the accountability of the SRA recipient after the SRA is completed. In constructing revised guidelines, the Research Leave Review Committee may wish to include a paragraph of instructions on the construction of the proposal, along with instructions for submission of the final report, and the form that report should take. Ideally, a copy of the work that results from the SRA should be attached to the report. The Research Leave Review Committee will further evaluate and discuss the issue.

4. New Business

a. Communication of Committees’ Activities

In the interest of enhanced communication between faculty bodies, the Coordinating Committee chair L. Langschied has asked committees to consider what records they produce and what they wish to make public. It was noted that a number of possibilities for effective communication exist, including sending minutes to the RUL_EVERYONE listserv, and then archiving the minutes on the web site. In the absence of communicated minutes, a committee could perhaps present a synopsis of what occurred at particular meetings. The Coordinating Committee members expressed some concern over the minutes of all bodies being made public due to sensitive personnel and other issues under discussion. If committee members felt that detailed minutes would be made public, it might inhibit full participation. Additionally, members expressed concern over a duplication of effort and increased workload.

The Coordinating Committee chair and deputy chair will review the mechanism used to post information to the Libraries web site. In conclusion, the Coordinating Committee agreed that each committee should decide for itself if shared and posted minutes are appropriate. It was decided that agendas for meetings should be sent out via RUL_EVERYONE in advance of meetings, followed by meeting minutes if appropriate.

b. Topics/Speakers for November 8, 2002 Faculty Meeting

After a very brief discussion, two possibilities for speakers were agreed upon.

Associate University Librarian for Digital Library Systems Grace Agnew will be invited to share her vision of the future of the digital library at Rutgers.

If this is not possible, the D21 Committee will be invited to share the plans for the Douglass Library renovations and future of library services in the new setting.

5. Report of the University Librarian (M. Gaunt)


The FASIP procedures, including eligibility guidelines and peer group criteria, will be issued shortly. The first criterion for FASIP awards is usually excellence in librarianship. The Libraries often award a large percentage of eligible members FASIP awards, hence there is less differentiation in the amount given to individuals. The Peer Evaluation Committee should evaluate based on merit, including an objective evaluation of the documentation submitted to support the finding of merit. The inclusion of documentation is important to encourage objectivity in the process. The documentation submitted by those wishing to be considered for a FASIP provides an opportunity for candidates to share their meritorious accomplishments with their colleagues.

Metadata Workshop

A workshop on metadata will take place at Rutgers on November 18, 2002. Library leaders throughout the state will be invited to attend, with a particular focus on VALE, the Statewide Digitization Committee, NJEdge, and RUL faculty and staff (If a Rutgers University faculty or staff member attends, the Libraries will cover the $25 registration fee.) The conference will take place in the Scholarly Communication Center (100 participants) and will be broadcast via satellite to the Dana Room (75 participants) in the Dana Library, and (due to space constraints) to a private room in the Robeson Library. The workshop focuses on the importance of metadata standards in the development of quality, interoperable digital projects for the development of shared resources across New Jersey.


UMDNJ/RUL Working Group

A UMDNJ/RUL working group has been established to reexamine the basis for library funding for UMDNJ students who are also recognized as New Brunswick students. The potential re-negotiation of the funding is based on the changing electronic environment. A needs assessment will be completed, and a dollar value for the services provided will be assigned at the end of the process.

6. Other

Council/Committee/Representative Reports

Collection Development Council (CDC) (T. Glynn): The CDC established its annual goals at a recent meeting. These goals include:

CDC has nearly met its goal of $300,000 in cuts. A small number of databases and a large number of print journals now available in electronic format were cancelled. The upcoming Reinvest in RU campaign will include a checkbox specifically for library collections.

Public Services Council (M. Kesselman): There was no report.

Technical Services Council (R. Jantz): There was no report.

Appointments and Promotions (M. Page): There was no report.

Committee of Review, New Brunswick Representative (K. Mulcahy): There was no report.

Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (M. Fetzer): There was no further report.

Planning Committee, Research Leave Review Committee (R. Tipton): K. Novick of SCILS has received a grant to conduct e-college training. A group will be meeting to develop distance education modules for staff in libraries.

Rules of Procedure, Camden Representative (T. Haynes): There was no report.

Scholarly and Professional Activities Committee (K. Denda): SAPAC is planning a session on alternative models for the future of reference. Newark Representative (A. Watkins): Business librarians actively participated in the recent MBA student orientation. ELF computers have been installed in public workstations, and will enable the creation of a smart classroom in the library. The exhibition opening for artist Hsu Dan was highly successful. Dana Library has been given very high ratings for quality of service in surveys of graduating seniors.

Chair L. Langschied noted that the deputy chair R. Marker would put out calls for Coordinating Committee agenda items prior to the meetings. She also queried as to whether the Research Leave Review Committee might wish to consider having a vice chair.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sara Harrington
RUL Faculty Secretary

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_02_09_25.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries