LAUC Davis General Meeting April 30, 1998 Corrected Minutes The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Rebecca Davis. Present: Rebecca Davis (Chair), Jim Martin, Nancy Kushigian, Jane Kimball, Sharon Baker, Ken Firestein, Mary Wood, Elaine Franco, Reve Rocke, Hans Rocke, Buzz Haughton, Michael Colby, Mary Helen Moreno, Karl Kocher, Carolyn Kopper, Linda Kennedy, Marcia Meister (Secretary), Gail Nichols, Patsy Inouye, Judy Welsh, Phyllis Wang, Jerry Thompson, Michael Winter, Ted Sibia, John Sherlock, Susan Casement, Mary Eldredge, Joanne Boorkman, George Bynon, Clinton Howard, Opry Popa. 1. Minutes of the January General Meeting were approved. 2. Annoucements: Susan Casement reported that the LAUC-D programs were finished for the year, although another Reference Forum might be scheduled at a later date. Rebecca Davis said that the deadline for nominations for the distinguished Librarian award is April 30. Nancy Kushigian reported that the Library Diversity Committee has scheduled a brown bag program on disability for April 30. The Committee has a web page up. 3. Report of the University Librarian: Marilyn Sharrow was unable to attend the meeting. George Bynon represented her. He had no report but stated his willingness to answer questions. Sharon Baker asked Bynon a question regarding the status of collective bargaining since some of the contract provisions expire. Bynon replied that discussions were ongoing. Patsy Inouye asked a question regarding a possible new salary survey for UC librarians, based on a comment from Myron Okada. Bynon had no new information. 4. LAUC-D Elections Update Jim Martin, Nominations and Elections Committee Chair, announced that a call for nominations for LAUC-D offices would be coming within the next week. A LAUC-D General meeting will include presentation of a slate of nominees. The election is June 12 and results will be announced the week following the elections. 5. Professional Governance Committee Report and Discussion: Rebecca Davis noted the materials provided for our discussion include a tabulation of the final vote count by campus and by question from the recent Professional Governance Committee survey on the issue of steps in the Librarian series; a position paper distributed via email; and the text of resolutions proposed in the Committee report. Davis suggested that we discuss the proposed resolutions as stated in the committee report. Discussion on the proposed resolutions included the following points: · Jane Kimball pointed out that resolution number one, which proposed revising the position paper regarding steps, was not a good idea; revising the position paper should wait until the steps issue has been resolved. · Linda Kennedy continued the discussion on resolution 1 by suggesting that resolution number one should be tabled. LAUC should work to get the extra steps, which wont be an easy argument to make, and the argument in favor of additional steps should include comparisons to other institutions and other salary issues to be effective. It is premature to revise the position paper at this time. · Susan Casement made the point that in comparing faculty steps, faculty step 6 is distinguished and steps 7 and 8 are beyond distinguished. · Additional discussion points included a question "what if steps are not added"? The Survey reports a majority vote in favor of making making a Librarian 5 a regular merit step if no additional steps are added. · Kimball suggested that we need to look at other non-Senate series titles as comparisons. We need to note that librarianship is an aging profession with few newer and younger people being recruited. We should ask what our libraries should look like in five years. There is a crunch of people at the top of the salary scale but there are also concerns for recruiting the best and the brightest entry level librarians. We need to look at the whole salary scale and need to raise the bottom as well as the top when librarians are replaced. There is also a need to look at the overlap between Associate and Librarian ranks to determine if there is still a valid need for the overlapping steps. · Bynon agreed that the demographic issue is a problem. An increase in the entry level is important in recruiting. It will need work to justify the extra steps at the top of the series. · Kennedy reported that the charge to the Professional Governance Committee in previous years was to restructure the salary range and it needs to be looked at again and follow-up on the previous Committee charge should be done. · Recruiting issues and salaries in a changing profession suggest that comparisons with private industry should be made as they may be more competitive. · John Sherlock reminded the group that there is considerable discussion on other campuses regarding a "Distinguished" step and some sentiment that there shouldnt be a "Distinguished" step at all. · Salary restructure apart from the distinguished issue was still a valid project. Discussion continued on the issue of a "distinguished" librarian step. Important points suggested included: · Jane Kimball reviewed the APM prior to the meeting and reports that other non-Senate academic series have a "distinguished" level · Linda Kennedy reported on a message from Judy Horn, (UCI) former Chair of the LAUC Committee on Professional Governance, saying that it is politically not a good move at this time to eliminate language regarding the "distinguished" step in the librarian series. · Rebecca Davis reported that some LAUC members feel that it is increasingly difficult in the changed work environment with fewer librarians to do the professional work outside the job which would be recognized as "distinguished" and therefore fewer librarians are actually eligible for the "distinguished" librarian step. · Joanne Boorkman said that she believers that the librarians who are motivated to achieve would do so regardless of other committments in time and on the job responsibilities. · Judy Welsh spoke about the LAUC Professional Goverance Committees charge. They talked about a salary survey but were advised that a salary survey was not a realistic part of their charge. They were not optimistic about getting the additional steps in the librarian series so proposed changes in the position paper based on an anticipated negative response. · Patsy Inouye reported that LAUC members on other campuses report inconsistencies in applying the criteria for advancement to step 5 and this is a large part of the problem in perception and application of the "distinguished" step. · It was suggested that the backlog of librarians at step 4 needed some financial incentives to continue to perform at a superior level. · Rebecca Davis reported that the LAUC statewide executive board had discussed applying for LAUC research funds to hire a professional to conduct a salary survey. · Regarding the Librarian 5 step, George Bynon said that in his opinion the real perception of the librarian steps is that the range goes to Librarian IV, with very few people going to Librarian V after exceptional and distinguished careers. UCOP does not really want to do another salary survey. · Changes in job structure and skills required are good arguments for looking at attracting the best job candidates and are good justifications for a major salary restructuring. · Kennedy and Kimball suggested that a small group could do further research and justification for salary increases and restructuring including additional steps. A small group could work as an ad hoc committee to work quickly on developing the material for an effective proposal. · John Sherlock proposed that some internal resolution on the question of a "distinguished" librarian step should take place. · A "straw poll" to vote on whether we in LAUC-D are in favor of retaining a Distinguished Librarian step was suggested. The following motions were introduced: 1. John Sherlock moved, that: LAUC-D takes the position that the top step of the Librarian series shall remain a distinguished step 26 approved 1 against 3 abstained 1 non-voting MOTION CARRIED 2. Linda Kennedy moved and Jane Kimball seconded, that: LAUC-D make the recommendation that the first resolution in the Professional Governance Committee Report should be tabled until a decision is made on adding steps. [resolution no. 2 reads: LAUC shall revise Postion Paper Number 1 to delete references to special criteria for reaching Librarian Step V] 26 approved 2 against 1 abstention MOTION CARRIED 3. Jane Kimball made a motion that LAUC-D should accept the second resolution in the Professional Governance Committee Report: [resolution no. 2 reads: LAUC shall officially request that the University administration add three more steps to the Librarian Rand (steps VI, VII and VIII)] 26 approved 3 abstentions MOTION CARRIED 4. Jane Kimball made a motion to accept the following motion and present it at the LAUC Assembly: That the LAUC President appoint a small ad hoc committee to prepare a report that provides recommendations regarding the following: 1. Raising the entry level salary for the librarian series in order to increase our success in recruiting and retaining the best new librarians for the UC system in the coming decade. 2. Reviewing the overlap between the ranks of Associate Librarian and Librarian. 3. Adding additional steps to the Librarian rank of the Librarian series to enhance career potential for librarians at the University of California. 4. Retaining the present criterion of distinguished career for advancement to the top step of the librarian series. 5. Restructuring the Librarian salary scale taking into account the librarian salary scales in the California State University system; an analysis of hiring patterns and salaries of new graduates of the nations leading programs in library and informaiton science; and other pertinent factors. 6. The committee should present its report and recommendations by the 1998 LAUC Fall Assembly. It was moved that we adopt the motion to present at the Assembly, the motion was seconded and the vote was taked as follows. 23 approved 0 opposed 3 absentions MOTION CARRIED 6. Research and Professional Development Resolution Phyllis Wang explained that problems with reporting the results of research have occurred at some campuses. The Committee wanted to issue a reminder, supported by LAUC, to people that they should follow the guidelines and make the reports on their research grants. Nancy Kushigian moved and Jane Kimball seconded that LAUC-D should support the resolution. 23 approved 0 opposed 0 abstained MOTION CARRIED 7. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted by Marcia Meister, Secretary