Minutes of January 25, 2012 Meeting

Jeanne Boyle, Joseph Deodato, Mary Fetzer (guest), Rebecca Gardner, Melissa Gasparotto, Marianne Gaunt (University Librarian), Jim Niessen (Coordinator), Jane Otto, Fernanda Perrone (guest), Roberta Tipton (remote), Ryan Womack (Deputy Coordinator), Tao Yang (Secretary)
Katie Anderson

The meeting came to order at 9:35am.

1. Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

2. Report of the Faculty Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator (Niessen)

Niessen has sent the updated memo regarding the information literacy program to USC. He will give a report on the work of the Planning and Coordinating Committee in a Cabinet meeting in February.

3. Old Business

Facilitating implementation of new liaison roles:
Scholarly communication and the Senate, CSC, and LRC

Niessen distributed the draft memo for CSC prior to the meeting. The basic idea was to ask CSC to compile relevant short electronic news items, which library liaisons can forward to the teaching departments. People debated briefly how frequent the email forwarding should be and acknowledged that once a semester seems to be the minimum. The news items can include links to proper outside sources. Other communication channels were discussed: the website of CSC needs updating, a new libguide on scholarly communication may help the selectors to import particular sections into their own guides, and personal contacts with teaching departments may also play a role. Specific comments about the draft memo include: striking the second paragraph as well as the second half of the first sentence in the third paragraph; modify the second half of the second sentence in the third paragraph to say "additional venues should be pursued". This memo should get to CSC right away with a copy to LRC. Niessen will revise the draft and share it electronically for discussion.

Otto reported that the University Senate's Research and Graduate and Professional Education Committee (RGPEC) has formed a subcommittee to draft an Open Access resolution and report for the Senate. The subcommittee is chaired by Otto and includes Laura Mullen, as well as Senators Victor Greenhut (Materials Science and Engineering), Jerome Kukor (Dean, Graduate School--New Brunswick), and John Ottomanelli (Ph.D. candidate, Graduate School--Newark and alumni representative to the Senate). Robert Goodman (Executive Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Executive Dean, SEBS; Executive Director, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) is reading the drafts. The draft report will be discussed at the full RGPEC meeting on Friday and revised based on discussion. An advance copy of the report was sent to Senate Chair Paul Panayotatos and Executive Secretary Ken Swalagin for distribution to the Executive Committee, with a request to extend the timeline. The new timeline calls for the report to the Senate Executive Committee in April, with full Senate discussion in the fall. This will enable RGPEC to gather the broadest possible input from across the university before taking it to the full Senate for a vote. The RGPEC Open Access Subcommittee has identified a number of forums for discussion on all three campuses, including the faculty council meetings in New Brunswick and Newark and an open forum of deans and faculty in Camden. The current version of the report is about 4-5 pages long, plus appendices and a draft policy based on Duke and Harvard policies. The draft policy is innovative in two ways. First, it extends beyond faculty to scholars, including graduate students and post-doctoral researchers. Second, it acknowledges that data associated with a deposited article could also go into the institutional repository. Other members commended Otto and Mullen for leading the effort of developing an Open Access policy for Rutgers.

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

Following the committee's recommendations from last meeting, Deodato further classified technology-related committees and working groups into three categories (collections, services, and infrastructure) and matched them with specific objectives outlined in the 2012-2015 strategic plan. The document is intended to serve as a guide for identifying appropriate groups for implementing specific technology projects and analyzing gaps, redundancies, and areas of organizational strength and weakness. Deodato suggested that the document could benefit from wider input as there may be some groups missing from the list or other views regarding goal assignments.

The committee discussed several observations based on the information presented. For example, while collections and services have planning and policy-making bodies represented by the Councils, there is no comparable planning body within the area of infrastructure. Also, many groups essential to daily operations (particularly within the areas of technical and access services) do not appear to be as well represented within the strategic plan as some other groups. Members discussed the difficulty of linking strategic plan objectives with each and every group and suggested that the link to the strategic plan for people doing day-to-day work may be more at the micro level than the macro level.

How does this help us plan for technology initiatives? When developing a project, we must assess all potential stakeholders and their roles within its planning and implementation. We should also be aware of functional overlaps and whether these represent areas of collaboration or unnecessary redundancies. For example, what is the relationship between Web Board and Web Services Working Group? Are there some groups that essentially include many of the same people but meet under different names? Is there really any unit that is not in some way involved in technology use, planning, or implementation? How does the current organizational structure support or encourage innovation? What is the procedure for introducing a new idea or shepherding a project from conception to completion? Is informally connecting with key people in technology areas more effective than trying to work through the organizational structure?

Several suggestions were made to further the discussion: creating a flowchart for a tech-related strategic goal (such as 2f) to demonstrate the role of each stakeholder in its planning and implementation, sorting committees by area of focus to better identify potential areas of collaboration and/or redundancy, assigning objectives to groups that currently have none, and revising the CSC charge (which has yet to be updated on the staff website).

4. New Business

a. Procedures for the Research Leave Review Committee

Fernanda Perrone, Chair of the committee, gave a brief review of the charge and activities of the RLRC and requested a change to the procedure regarding sabbatical applications. Currently when a library faculty requests a sabbatical, the application goes to the AUL or Unit Director (UD), who has one week to endorse it (or not) and also advise the applicant to improve the research proposal. Then the application goes to the RLRC, which reviews the application on its merit and writes a report to the University Librarian. The University Librarian then reviews everything and makes a decision. Perrone suggested reversing the procedure and having the RLRC review the application first before it goes to the AUL/UD. This change requires changes only to the guidelines of the RLRC, not the bylaws.

Fetzer offered a recent example of how the current procedure was problematic. When multiple applications came to her from the same unit, she found it difficult to figure out the service needs within one week. She also thought it would be helpful to have the RLRC input about the substance of the research proposal prior to making her own decision. Perrone added that after RLRC receives the AUL/UD's recommendation, it may be difficult for the committee to make a decision that contradicts it.

After some discussion, members agreed that RLRC can reverse the process and also suggested reviewing the time frame (perhaps allowing the AUL/UD more time to review the applications).

b. Experiences with the Futures Group

Fetzer distributed an outline of the program for the Futures Group. It was started by a former NBL director but has expanded to both Newark and Camden since Fetzer took over. Currently the recently hired faculty are in Futures I, which meet once a month. They go through a cycle of discussion sessions that aim to familiarize the candidates with the tenure process and help them formulate their own opinions. After they finish the cycle, they move onto Futures II, which meet less frequently on additional topics. Members provided Fetzer some ideas for the Futures Group sessions: having SC&I faculty talk about research trends, and discussing time management.

Members felt it important to make sure everyone hears the same message, given the range of mentoring activities in RUL (one-on-one mentoring program, unit director mentoring, senior faculty mentoring, and Futures Group). Niessen and Gaunt are working on a document on the mentoring program, and they will include a section about the Futures Group.

c. RUL Program for Robert Wood Johnson librarians and staff

Regarding the possible RWJ merger, Gaunt reiterated that the RWJ hospital library will stay open as a branch library, but a number of other issues have yet to be decided, including the report line and the HR issues (but nobody's status will be diminished). The space of the hospital library is small, with limited computing space. The delivery of print materials may be reconsidered, given that the nursing school is nearby.

The UMDNJ (Robert Wood Johnson Medical Library, RWJML) librarians will give a presentation on medical education and medical librarianship in Alexander Library on February 1. Gaunt asked the group what are the suitable topics for a RUL presentation to the RWJ librarians and staff. A list of topics was suggested:

A question was also raised about whether the merger will change the relationship of RUL with other health science libraries.

5. Report of the University Librarian

Gaunt was not aware whether the Governor has received the second and final task force report on medical education. There was no legislative move either. She will consider having another ALA mid-winter debriefing session.

6. Summary of meeting outcomes

Niessen summarized the meeting outcomes. We discussed the draft document for CSC and made many revisions; Niessen will incorporate them and send out a new draft. The discussion about the organizational structure continued; we were not sure how to use the document ultimately, but Deodato will augment it with strategic objectives for those lacking, group the committees by objectives, and develop a workflow based on one sample activity (goal 2f in the new strategic plan). Perrone's recommendation to reverse the order of sabbatical review process was approved. Fetzer reported on the Futures Group. Gaunt received feedback on the program for RWJ librarians and staff.

7. Future agenda items

Future agenda items are the possible implementation of faculty and staff blog and the role of campus representatives on committees vis-a-vis their units. We also look forward to a report on ILIAC.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55am.

Submitted by Tao Yang, Faculty Secretary

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/fac_coordinating_com/minutes/coordcom_12_01_25.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries