LAUC-D Executive Board Minutes
February 13, 2004
Approved with corrections
Present: T. Malmgren, B. Heyer-Gray, R. Gustafson, D. Goldstein, D. Morrison, C.
Craig, P. French, N. Kushigian, D. King (Recorder)
1. Call to Order: 9:07 AM
2. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from last meeting (January 9, 2003) were approved with two corrections.
3. Spring Assembly (T. Malmgren): Statewide Spring Assembly takes place at UC Riverside on May 13-14. The website is now up with explanatory information for travel and accommodations: http://laucr.ucr.edu/LAUCSpring04/. The agenda is not up on the site yet. The Statewide Executive Board transition won’t take place until the end of August.
4. Old Business:
a. Brochure (King, Gustafson): The suggested edits to the draft LAUC brochure have been made. The purpose of the brochure is to provide an accessible document to new members and job candidates. There will be both a web document and a print brochure, preferably printed on nicer glossy paper.
ACTION: C. Craig will format the brochure into a two-sided document for printing, and Executive Board will review
b. Committee Reports:
* Professional Issues (P. French): The committee had its first meeting, prompted by previous Executive Board discussions regarding e-scholarship and professional time constraint issues. The committee consensus was to avoid a major project because of the lack of time available for them to do so. Possibilities might include internal working papers, or a staff brown bag that includes discussion of how we publish as a profession.
There were several points of discussion related to the issue of professional time for research or activities beyond the primary job description, especially at a time when the library faces further cuts and librarians retire. Jobs have become larger in scope with a heavier workload and less support staff. Can LAUC as a professional organization play a role in thinking about best strategies? Timing plays a role, since the organizational assessment tool is going to be used for planning and will soon be discussed departmentally. The tool’s criteria and LAUC-D discussion are related to the Library Mission Statement, which is always included in the Library’s annual report. The statement does not appear to be online, however.
ACTION: T. Malmgren will review the assessment tool, then approach G. Bynon about considering a response to LAUC questions regarding its use; she will then draft a collective response. T. Malmgren will inquire about the possibility of putting the library’s annual report online.
*Review Board (N. Kushigian): The Board has completed about 15 reviews, and still has several more to consider. One possible Winter Quarter discussion topic for the General Membership meeting may be a discussion and clarification of the review process.
*Program Committee (Gustafson): The working calendar for the committee’s proposed activities is February-June of this year. In early March, there will be a tour of the UCD Herbarium coordinated by E. Mckecknie. For mid-March or early April, the committee is working on a possible book author talk with O. Popa and R. Castro on their publication experiences. For late March or April, there will be an open access models seminar or forum. ACTION: Send to R. Gustafson any possible suggestions for non-science speakers who are knowledgeable on this topic, since the speaker line-up is mostly from scientific fields. Ted Bergstrom will be speaking, possibly in April or later, on journal pricing issues. R. Gustafson is still tracking past program funding to gather information on procedure, but there will be some funding for travel and expenses (work with Debbie Ojakangas on travel procedures).
For summer, a possible program topic might be something on the “21st Century Librarian,” with emphasis on how our jobs are changing. There will be a least one program during the summer. Other summer goals include gathering and organizing past program paper files; organizing files on LAUC-D reception procedures; and, generating electronic file listing of all LAUC-D programs that can be traced and have this placed on the LAUC-D website.
*Research Committee (D. Goldstein): The LAUC-D committee is meeting to discuss and evaluate the six applications submitted for statewide research funding. None of the applications were from Davis. One local mini-grant is ongoing (LAUC-D uses the statewide form for local applications). Time constraint continues to be a major issue, making it difficult to promote research funding opportunities to new librarians. C. Craig asked if the committee could investigate guidelines for human subject research, should this be necessary.
*Nominations and Elections (D. Morrison): The committee needs to create an election slate for this year. D. Morrison has discussed procedures with past chairs Annie Lin and Susan Llano. The local slate must include the statewide slate as well, which is one reason why last year’s election was slightly delayed. ACTION: D. King will send D. Morrison a list a new members from the last two years. Members can also send suggestions on possible candidates for positions to D. Morrison.
D. King proposed separating the role of LAUC-D web manager from the Secretary position. The responsibilities of Secretary are time consuming even without this responsibility, and the website has historically suffered because of a lack of continuity in practice. There is no mention of the website in the bylaws. Further discussion on how formal the web manager role needs to be can be discussed at the next meeting.
5. New Business:
a. LAUC-Statewide Executive Board meeting, 9 Feb. 2004 (T. Malmgren):
Official meeting minutes will be available on the LAUC-Statewide site. Statewide President Linda Kennedy will meet with the ULs regarding LAUC issues and the budget process. The Awards Committee had good response to their survey; some funds will once again be made available for a new librarian to attend Statewide Assembly. The bylaws for Merced were passed. The Position Paper Task Force will revise guidelines, but not start work on a distinguished status paper. The continuing question of the distinguished step could involve a group formed of LAUC members and ULs to discuss the issues involved.
b. Review Discussion
The Board discussed a possible forum at the next General Membership meeting, with Q&A from members on the current review and promotion process. The questions will ideally be collected in advance. Some issues regarding the process may be connected to the assessment tool, but this may be a separate topic.
6. Meeting adjourned: 11:00