LAUC-D Executive Board Minutes October 12, 1998

Present: B. Haughton, R. Davis, K. Lin, C. Kopper. J. Ward, G. Nichols, P. Wang.

Minutes from the previous meeting were approved without comment.


Michael Colby has accepted an appointment to the Review Board.

Committee Chairs Reports

Program Committee: The Fall Reception is planned and the announcement has been made. Other programs are in the works.

The Research Committee has received reports from six local recipients, and one recipient has dropped the project and returned the money.

A first call for Statewide proposals is expected 16 October 1998.

Professional Activities: There was a discussion of the purpose of the PAC as regards the Professional Activity Forms. The PAC will discuss and recommend possible changes in the purpose and authority of the Committee, to be introduced on the agenda of a General Membership meeting. The agenda item will be something like ‘the procedure for funding professional activities’.

Review Board: Carolyn Kopper presented the Review Board Annual Report.

The Review Board asks for clarification of C-9 in these areas outlined in their report. The salient paragraphs from their Annual Report are reproduced here:

  1. We request that the criteria for acceleration at Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarian and Librarian be explored. Some of the issues that we would like to be explored are: How should it differ at each rank and each step? What is the quality of performance that is worthy for consideration of acceleration?
  2. Library Policy Statement C-9, Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarian Series, (pg. 5) outlines that the University Librarian may solicit further information from the Review Board but it does not provide guidance for which this provision could be used. Does this section need clarification? Or further, does the Division want the Review Board consulted regularly when the University Librarian disagrees with the recommendation of the Review Board. It was indicated to us that it was desirable to have a packet continue to move forward. This indicates that the University Librarian would rarely seek additional information from the Review Board. What are the consequences of the current procedures?
  3. Library Policy Statement C-9, (pg.24) conflicts with the Academic Personnel Manual 360-80 (a) 2 in that the APM indicates a deferral must be submitted to "the divisional advisory review committee(s)." LPS C-9 indicates that a request for deferrals "are addressed to the University Librarian, with copies to the appropriate administrative Assistant or Associate University Librarian and the Library Personnel Officer. The University Librarian will forward her/his recommendation to the Vice Provostwho has final authority" We assume that a deferral is sent to the Academic Federation Personnel Committee. Deferrals are, then, only seen by the Academic Federation Personnel Committee. All other actions are seen by both committees. What are the consequences of this deviation from the norm?
  4. The Academic Federation continues its discussion with the Vice Provost Academic Planning and Personnel about the Equity Study. We would like to explore the possibility of disproportionate achievements that can not be explained by individual strengths and characteristics. To this end, we are inviting LAUC Incoming Chair Buzz Haughton to charge the Professional Issues Committeeto explore equity issues with respect to the librarians series.
  5. Reve Rocke has revised the index to C-9 and the annotated APM. Since it had not been revised for 10 years, she found a number of changes. The board could not ascertain how changes to C-9 and the annotated APM occur. We request that the LAUC Executive Board discuss with the Library Administration procedures for making changes to our documentation.

The Review Board report will be on the agenda of the General Membership meeting November 18th.

The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes submitted by John D. Ward,