Minutes of Wednesday, October 23, 2002 meeting

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


1. The agenda was revised as follows:
New Business
a. Agenda for November 8, 2002 RUL faculty meeting
b. Discussion of the Vagelos report
c. Discussion on the role of the Reading Committee
The agenda was adopted as amended.

2. The minutes of the previous Coordinating Committee meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Old Business

a. Update from the Planning Committee

Recent Planning Committee discussion has focused on the continued process of charting new directions for RUL. The Committee believes that a period of education will be useful, exploring topics such as metadata and other crucial issues in the digital library environment. The Planning Committee advocates the construction of a web page for the education of the library faculty, which will be used to build and foster organizational knowledge on a variety of issues. Discussion is still underway regarding where the page, tentatively titled “Planning Resources,” would be located on the RUL web page, suggestions include under “Staff Resources,” or under the “Digital Project Development” section of the SCC page. It was noted that links to important documents would have to be made across the site. The page will be publicized within the RUL organization.

On a related topic, M. Gaunt provided a handout of a presentation by Dan Atkins on the NSF’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. The Panel is currently composing a proposal for Congress that employs strategic, long-term thinking and focuses on the importance of both sustainable development and legacy data.

Additionally, the State of the Libraries will address the state of RUL’s progress on the Digital Library Initiative and the directions in which RUL will be heading. The Planning Committee encourages all faculty to attend the upcoming library faculty meeting, the State of the Libraries, and the Metadata Workshop.

b. Report from Committees on Communications

Each committee chair indicated what communications, if any, would be sent to the RUL_EVERYONE list serv.

Appointments and Promotions (M. Page): Minutes will not be shared. Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (M. Fetzer): The issue will be addressed at the November 12, 2002 meeting.

Rules of Procedure (T. Haynes): No decision was reached, as the Committee has not yet met.

Committee of Review (K. Mulcahy): Minutes will not be shared. Planning Committee (R. Tipton): An abbreviated statement of the minutes will be sent to RUL_EVERYONE.

Research Leave Review Committee (R. Tipton): Brief minutes will be shared with RUL_EVERYONE.

Scholarly and Professional Activities (K. Denda): Minutes will be sent to RUL_EVERYONE.

Collection Development (T. Glynn), Public Services (M. Kesselman) and Technical Services Councils: Minutes are already sent to RUL_EVERYONE and will continue to be shared in this manner.

4. New Business

a. Agenda for November 8, 2002 RUL Faculty Meeting

An open session discussion of the Vagelos report will be included in the faculty meeting agenda.

Grace Agnew, Associate University Librarian for Digital Library Systems, will speak to the faculty following the adjournment of the business meeting. In order to provide the speaker with sufficient time, it is hoped that items under New Business and the reports of faculty members can be relatively concise. The proposed agenda for the faculty meeting was approved.

b. Discussion of Vagelos Report

Dr. Seneca has asked the deans for a response to the Vagelos report by November 8, 2002. Specifically, the deans will provide a report on the ramifications of the proposed merger. M. Gaunt has asked the cabinet members to coordinate the identification of ramifications in their respective areas; the emphasis is on assuring that we are not omitting important areas that would be greatly affected by the merger. The implementation of a merger remains very much in question, as does the funding necessary for such a costly restructuring. Governor McGreevey’s comments to the press indicate that the reorganization is in part conceived of as a way to galvanize corporate involvement in and support for the University. The Libraries were mentioned in the report in the contexts of both access and potential savings. There is great concern that, as in other departments, the Libraries resources will be spread thinner and stressed further.

It was noted that there are compelling reasons to merge, including capitalizing on campus-level synergy. In the case of the Libraries, the merger could potentially benefit the user by providing access to more resources and a larger technological infrastructure; e.g., moving increasingly to a consortia model for the Libraries. However, it will be necessary to carefully consider the resources necessary to merge. The Libraries must focus on how we can adopt a holistic approach to the merger, thereby maintaining maximum flexibility.

Questions remain about extent of campus level autonomy. It might be necessary to make a case to keep the library system whole. Indeed, the ideal situation might provide for the Libraries infrastructure to remain intact with both centralized and decentralized elements. Clearly, there are many, many issues to consider as the process moves forward.

c. Role of Reading Committees

A brief discussion on the role of the reading committee was held in order to allow Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee Chair M. Fetzer to bring the key issues back to the committee for discussion. Several concerns were raised, and some disagreement was made manifest in the discussion. It was offered that, in some instances, reading committee reports were believed to be overly descriptive at the expense of critical evaluation. Reading committee reports could potentially address what the candidate’s scholarly output contributed to the profession, and how the candidate’s work built on previous work done in the field. In short, the reading committee report might contextualize the candidate’s work within the professional literature of the field. It was also noted that it is likely to be impossible for reading committee members to become so familiar with the literature in which the candidate is writing that they can totally appreciate the breadth and depth of some of the material and the requisite knowledge needed to publish a particular piece. Nevertheless, some effort is required from the reading committee to place the material in an appropriately evaluative context.. Failing to be sufficiently familiar with the literature in that area, however, may do a disservice to the depth and breadth of the candidate’s scholarship. Coordinating Committee chair L. Langschied helped close the discussion by reviewing the current instructions to the reading committee, whose work is intended to help the unit make informed decisions as the tenure process proceeds. PPPAAC will begin work on this issue, and may offer a statement of the issues surrounding reading committee work. PPAAC may also offer a statement of guidance to reading committees.

5. Report of the University Librarian

M. Gaunt had no additional report, as her chief concerns were the discussion of the Vagelos report and sharing the handout of the Atkins presentation on cyberinfrastructure.

6. Other

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

Public Services Council (M. Kesselman): The PSC has completed a draft of questions for the evaluation of librarianship in this area. The AAL management team has been examining a management software package, and it has received positive responses.

Collection Development Council (T. Glynn): The CDC has also developed a series of questions related to the evaluation of librarianship. $300,000 in funds from “Reinvest in Rutgers” will be directed towards retrospective conversion/preservation priorities in tandem, as well as backfiles of e-journals and a contingency fund.

Newark Campus (A. Watkins): A jubilee celebration will be held for the Institute of Jazz Studies, and Dana Library will be hosting the upcoming Book Arts Symposium.

Research Leave Review (R. Tipton): The Committee has drafted new guidelines that will be examined at the next Coordinating Committee meeting.

Planning Committee (R. Tipton): There was no further report. Rules of Procedure, Camden Campus (T. Haynes): There was no report. Committee of Review, New Brunswick Campus (K. Mulcahy): There was no report.

Scholarly and Professional Activities Committee: SAPAC will jointly host an upcoming forum examining the future of Reference Services. Appointments and Promotions Committee: The Committee is working on one tenure action.

In closing chair L. Langschied noted that she and A. Montanaro had recently attended a conference examining institutional repositories. They will share the interesting information garnered in wider forum in the future. MIT continues to lead the way in this area with DSpace. The important issue of institutional repositories may appear on the agenda of an upcoming faculty meeting.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sara Harrington
RUL Faculty Secretary

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_02_10_23.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries