January 13, 2003
Present: Patsy Inouye (Chair), Karen Andrews, Karleen Darr, Rebecca Davis, Ken Firestein, Annie Lin, Gail Nichols, Sandra Vella, Diana King (Recorder)
1. Meeting called to order at 9:15 by Patsy Inouye.
2. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from November 18, 2002, were approved with two corrections.
3. Peer Review Documents Review Committee
Discussion was continued from the last Executive Board Meeting concerning the status of this committee. Joanne Boorkman has agreed to serve as chair. The other members will be Karen Andrews, Ken Firestein, Patsy Inouye (Ex-officio), and Sandra Vella (Ex-officio). The Board also discussed the potential addition of a new Librarian to the Board, with that member ideally having gone through the review process at least once.
Patsy Inouye also presented a draft charge for the 2002/2003 Committee, including a name change to the “Peer Review Documents Revision Committee”:
The Peer Review Documents Revision Committee is charged with the following:
Review the Document which consolidates the procedures and steps of the process for
non-represented and represented Librarians. Recommend a final version.
Review the local language which currently annotates the Academic Personnel Manual
(APM) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Recommend additions,
revisions to the local language.
In the review of the local language, take into consideration the Davis Division’s
have revealed the need for clarification of language, and structure.
Consider whether the Position Papers should be incorporated into our local language
4. SRLF Board
At Fall Assembly, LAUC President Esther Grassian discussed several points of concern regarding the UC Regional Library Facilities, and will most likely draft a letter expressing key issues. As part of overall budgetary cuts, UC Berkeley cut monies to NRLF. This is of concern because it means one campus can affect the budget of a campus-wide resource. Several questions arose regarding the details of how the RLFs are funded.
R. Davis inquired as to whether or not the governing campus is given money to incorporate into its budget. The monies most likely come from UCOP, though the intricacies of how the budgeting works were not known at the meeting.
K. Andrews asked if budget cuts to the RLFs could affect services for the planned print serials archive at SRLF. There is already some down time for holiday hours, which are matched to UCB’s operating hours. The Board discussed the need for preparedness in terms of staff time and the availability of the print journals for users. Since the print archive will most likely result in increased request functions, SRLF must deal with a number of existing issues. For example, there are a number of loose volumes without barcodes, which may hinder the facility’s ability to achieve fast retrieval. The LAUC representative to SRLF is Sheryl Davis (UCR), and Gail Nichols serves as the UC Davis representative to the NRLF Operative Board.
K. Firestein asked how many LAUC members work at RLFs. The answer is none, since the facilities function mainly as a storage system. There could potentially be clearer lines of communication between LAUC and the RLFs to help relay concerns.
Chair Inouye asked, as a UC campus, do we want Statewide LAUC to send a letter? The Board suggested sending stated issues of concern to Esther Grassian in order to lend advise on the matter.
5. LAUC Position Papers
While individual LAUC divisions are still to consider issues surrounding Position Paper 1 for vote at Spring Assembly, there is now also going to be a 3-5 person task force (members not yet appointed) charged with reviewing papers 2-5 (all documents can be found at: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/docs.html). Each of these documents has an individual purpose, but it’s possible that some contain information overlaps and need to be updated or consolidated. Each LAUC division has been asked to prioritize review of the papers by the task force.
Paper 2 stands out as most in need of revision; Paper 5 probably doesn’t need much change, but the task force should discuss its purpose. Since review guidelines are codified on individual campuses, the role of LAUC guidelines for Librarian review is unclear. The LAUC-D recommendations for priority consideration (from highest to lowest) were agreed to be: Paper 2, Paper 5, Paper 3, Paper 4. Paper 1 will be discussed at the next LAUC-D General Membership Meeting.
6. Professional Development Concerns and Library Computing
K. Firestein asked, how does the Systems Department work with other departments to support service to patrons? There seem to have been some breakdowns in communication on issues like administrative rights and software installation. Other related issues include the blocking of web-based Geckomail at reference desks and My UC Davis access for students at public stations. Campus IT also plays a role in some decision-making, and other Library committees like EISAC are considering similar technology issues. Also, if Systems is actively seeking another Head, should this person have an MLS, or a background in library issues?
K. Andrews noted that at one time, there was a procedure for Systems to discuss potential software changes with department heads and other Library groups. There was also once a Systems representative at RIO meetings, which no longer seems to be the case. Communication to departments now filters down through department heads, but Systems has been especially busy and low on available staff recently. This issue may be continued at another meeting. John Tanno could be invited for discussion, and LAUC-D might also recommend the presence of Systems representatives on more Library committees. The status of the search for a new Head of Systems is unclear, but there are LAUC members on the search committee.
7. Committee on
The Board reviewed the charge to the 2002/2003 (Statewide) LAUC Committee on Professional Governance (http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/pg/charge-2002.html), as well as the 2001/2002 CPG Report. This report focused on the results of the 2002 survey of LAUC members regarding the Distinguished designation in the Librarian series, and the Committee’s four recommendations (http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/pg/annual01-02.html).