Minutes of November 16, 2011 Meeting

Katie Anderson, Natalie Borisovets (substituting for Tipton), Jeanne Boyle, Joseph Deodato, Rebecca Gardner, Melissa Gasparotto, Marianne Gaunt, Jim Niessen (Coordinator), Jane Otto, Ryan Womack (Deputy Coordinator), Tao Yang (Secretary)
Roberta Tipton

The meeting came to order at 9:32am.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

Report of the Faculty Coordinator -- Niessen

The proposal for the ad hoc LEAD committee was presented at the faculty meeting last Friday; the Rules of Procedure will hold a special election for the faculty members of the committee. The Cabinet discussed communication issues and encouraged faculty members to suggest topics for the agenda. Also, the Cabinet might hold open meetings from time to time, which was welcomed.

Old Business

Facilitating implementation of new liaison roles
Information literacy and the USC

Anderson and Gasparotto drafted a letter to USC regarding compiling instructional statistics. Members discussed how the instructional statistics are collected and reported on three campuses. Anderson gave a brief update on ILIAC, the USC committee for information literacy. Members felt it appropriate to ask USC to charge ILIAC to compile the data. Integrating library instruction with student learning goals may be another area for ILIAC to investigate. Niessen will email the group a revised version of the USC letter for further discussion. We will ask ILIAC to give another update later this year.

Scholarly communication and the Senate, CSC, and LRC

Relating to open access, the Graduate and Professional Education Committee of the University Senate has adopted a charge, but its wording needs to be revised. Otto is on the committee and will propose a new charge. Gaunt suggested inviting members of the NB and Newark faculty councils to work on the charge once it is approved in the Senate.

New Business

Assess the organizational structure and appropriate bodies for understanding user needs and expectations and implementing technologies for library services and make recommendations for appropriate changes.

Deodato described his five-step plan for improving digital services, which consists of an environmental scan (including literature review and peer analysis), needs assessment, gap analysis, priority project list, and implementation plan. He also made three specific recommendations: having a group of librarians and staff dedicated to R&D, meeting the needs for technical support in digital services, and using small, flexible working groups.

Members noted the large size of two technology-related groups (Web Board and RUcore) and discussed the impact of grant-funded projects on priorities. Needs assessments have been done through the ethnography project and Counting Opinion survey, but are we ready to act on them? The website redesign process has been stalled by delays with the design contract and server migration. Ideas for new web-based services, such as an OPAC-integrated stacks mapping application, were discussed, but the lack of programming support necessary for development was noted as a potential barrier to implementation.

Deodato and Gasparotto will prepare a list of technology-related groups and their responsibilities, based on the information about library committees that Boyle and Fredenburg collected.

Report of the University Librarian -- Gaunt

Gaunt reminded people to fill out the annual disclosure form required by the state online. The University will send out the other form on outside work soon. She will send out a simple form for faculty and staff to fill out about their formal roles on University/departmental committees and task forces.

The University and UMDNJ have set up a dozen joint committees for the RWJ merger. The Academic Affairs Committee has a library subcommittee. A number of library-related issues have been identified, including licensing, physical library in the RWJ hospital, staffing, and reporting line. The major issue now is to identify what needs to be done before July 1, what can be done afterwards, and the cost. She will make an announcement about this later.

Summary of meeting outcomes

Niessen summarized the outcomes. The draft letter to USC regarding information literacy was discussed; he will send out a revised draft for discussion, before presenting it to USC. We also received an update on the scholarly communication issue in the Senate. The discussion on the first annual goal started; Deodato and Gasparotto will provide an updated list of technology-related committees and groups.

Future agenda items

The future agenda items are the assessment of the RUL mentoring program and a discussion of Deodato and Gasparotto's report and the revised USC letter.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:23am.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_11_11_16.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries