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