New Brunswick Libraries Faculty Meeting
Friday, November 17, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.
Pane Room, Alexander Library, College Avenue Campus

S. Bartz, J. Cassel, K. Denda, H. Dess, M. Fetzer, C. Finlay, R. Gardner, S. Harrington (recorder), K. Hartman, T. Kuchi, M. L. Lo, J. Mardikian, K. Mulcahy, L. Mullen, P. Piermatti, F. Puniello, J. Sloan, F. Tehrani, R. Womack


  1. The agenda was adopted

  2. The minutes of the September 15, 2006 NBLF meeting were approved.

  3. Open Lines:
    In the past NBL has discussed temporarily putting aside the Instructional Technology librarian line.  The current issue of C&RL has an article on Instructional Design positions, and Middlestates criteria place a good deal of importance on instruction and assessment.  Several have spoken in favor of delaying the search, and using the position as an incentive associated with the AUL for Reference and Instructional Services position, namely that the incoming AUL could begin to shape NBL activities by participating in the selection of in the Instructional Technology faculty member.  It was noted that NBL does not yet have a cohesive philosophy about instruction and its potential larger role in the Libraries, which might be yet another reason to delay the search. 

    There was a brief discussion about what kind of  technological support the incoming Instruction librarian might have to support his/her work.  There remains some confusion about how the Instruction position fits into the New Brunswick Libraries with reference to mentoring and tenure and promotion, there has been in the past some concern about the ‘tenurability’ of the line.  It was stated that the line is not split between NBL and TAS, it resides in NBL.

    The discussion continued as to what kind of potential delay in the hiring timeline NBL is contemplating.  It is difficult to define a particular timetable because, if indeed the hiring of the Instructional Technology librarian is dependent on the arrival of the AUL for Reference and Instructional Services then we might be talking about a rather extended timeline. 

    M. Fetzer called the question of if NBL wishes to delay the search for a faculty member to fill the position of Instructional Technology librarian. 
    A vote was taken:
    17 Yes
    0 No
    2 Abstention

    The position search will be delayed.  The exploratory Committee on open lines in New Brunswick, consisting of K. Mulcahy, J. Cassel, H. Hoffman, and M. Fetzer, have been asked to write up an explanation of the NBL decision.

    There are three additional positions for which search were in process, and there is a recommendation to reexamine and rank these positions, which might serve to reassert their value to NBL. 

    The positions are:
    Humanities Librarian
    East Asian Librarian
    Social Sciences Data Librarian
    All three of these positions had existing search committees.  There is some concern about proceeding with all three at one time.  Some spoke in favor of continuing the searches simultaneously, as it is difficult to determine which position search will locate a potential faculty member who is both ‘tenurable,’ and can work effectively within the larger NBL structure.

    A motion was put forth that NBL endorses the three positions of East Asian Librarian, Humanities Librarian, and Social Sciences Data Librarian for hiring.
    A vote was taken:
    Yes: 15
    No: 0
    Absentions: 3
    NBL endorses all three positions.

    F. Puniello noted that NBL is guaranteed to be able to proceed only with the East Asian Librarian position.  If NBL wishes to hire on two other lines, NBL will have to use both salary savings and below the line monies.  Salary savings could also be used to hire voucher staff to assist with instruction or other activities.  F. Puniello stated that in general she favors maintaining maximum flexibility.  NBL affirmed that these three positions are the most important positions to NBL vis à vis the earlier, wider pool of positions discussed.  It was noted, however, that the amount of money we can dedicate to a potential line will undoubtedly affect the type of candidate we can recruit; i.e., an experienced, senior candidate may be unable or unwilling to come without a commensurate salary.

  4. AUL’s Report: This Year’s Budget (F. Puniello and R. Smith, guest)
    R. Smith attended the meeting to share the perspective of Access Services on the budget situation.  He noted that in meetings with student focus groups, students strongly advocated for expanded library hours.  Access Services proposes expanding Library hours as follows during the Spring 2007 semester:
    SERC: to 1 a.m.
    Alex: to 2 a.m.
    Kilmer/Douglass: to 1 a.m.
    It would cost a total of $8200 per semester to restore these hours.  The potential restoration of hours will continue to be examined by the RUL administration.F. Puniello also noted that sabbatical applications for the coming year would be carefully scrutinized.  The use of vacation time should preferably used when school is not in session.  As a courtesy, please check with reference team leaders regarding reference schedules when planning vacation time.  F. Puniello also asked faculty members to keep administrative staff apprised of the faculty members’ locations during the working day.

  5. NBISG (J. Sloan)
    There exists some consensus about reinstating NBISG and electing a chair, but as yet no one is able to serve in the capacity of chair.  It may be useful to have a full discussion on the issue the next time we have sufficient room on the NBLF agenda.  It was suggested that perhaps the incoming AUL RIS may wish to examine NBISG issues.  It was also noted that the NBISG deals with issues that extend well beyond instruction and reference alone, and that any faculty member serving as Chair would require significant support.

    A brief update on the approval plan was shared.  RUL needs to reduce approval plan costs to approximately $30,000-$40,000 a month.  We will need a few months to determine if the refinements recently made to the profile will realize sufficient cost savings.

  6. Digital Projects:
    G. Agnew, R. Jantz, A. Montanaro and S. McDonald attended the second part of the meeting in order to discuss digital projects, and how public service librarians might engage with digital projects.  In order to facilitate exchange, G. Agnew and R. Jantz made brief presentations, and then NB librarians shared questions and comments in a round robin.

    G. Agnew noted that the repository is now in a position to serve as an extremely strong functional tool.  Currently, two large-scale projects are accessible: the New Jersey Digital Highway and the Moving Image Collections.  RUL is also ready to go live with its repository, which currently contains 4,000 Special Collections and University Archive and New Jersey Digital Highway resources.  The next version will be released in January, and RUL hopes to go live to the wider faculty with that version in March of 2007.  There will be a simple input form for uploading resources.  Resources will include pre-prints, post prints, white papers, reports, presentations, images, and audio clips.  AUL J. Boyle is currently in the process of drafting a non-exclusive licensing agreement for repository content. RUL wants to assume a leadership role in digital rights management.  The repository will offer a dynamic search to users and users will be able to limit the collections that they are searching.  Thus, it will appear to the user as if each faculty department or center has its own repository.

    R. Jantz followed up by distributing a summary of some of the elements that will be available in the next two releases of RU Core.  Collection partners will be able to establish their own portals, attach to our site and identify only those collections that they are interested in, and full text indexing will be available.  The 856 field of the MARC records in individual IRIS records will take one directly to an RU core item.  The repository is intended to have an intuitive and user-friendly interface.  RUL wants to figure out how to develop flexible, customizable tools to use with faculty.  Issues surrounding repository policies continue to be being worked on.

    In the round robin, faculty members posed questions, raised issues, and noted the existence of resources that might be good candidates for the repository, such as analog content in the Music Library, and unique audiovisual materials in the SMLR library.  There is some concern that there may be stampede of potential participants.  A number of questions were posed, including who will be able to crawl repository, and how will born-digital materials be incorporated.  As far as the Faculty ingestion process goes—how are we going to take faculty comments into account as they begin to use and comment upon the repository?  It was noted that R. Gardner, K. Hartman and T. Kuchi are part of a group which will examine faculty application and services with regards to the repository, and this group will work to engage subject selectors.   There was also some discussion, given this new Committee’s work and the continued work on the repository, if and how the Digital Repository Review Committee will continue to function.

    The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 p.m.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Sara Harrington