Meeting Minutes, April 28, 2003
Present: Patsy Inouye (Chair), Terri Malmgren, Annie Lin, Karleen Darr, Rebecca Davis, Gail Nichols, Karen Andrews, Sandra Vella, Diana King (Recorder)
1. Meeting called to order by P. Inouye, 9:05.
2. Approval of Minutes: Approval of the Jan. 13, 2003 minutes was deferred until completion, since Secretary D. King had to leave early that day and notes for item #7 (CPG charge and report) were taken by others. Corrections/additions can be sent by e-mail or at next meeting.
3. Committee Reports
Research Committee: R. Davis reported on the LAUC Statewide committee. Only three proposals were submitted this year, and a final decision on them will be forthcoming. Locally, the LAUC committee is still planning an author’s event.
Elections Committee: A. Lin noted that it is primarily a local practice to designate the UCD Research Committee chair as the appointment to the statewide committee. She suggested a change to the by-laws to make this designation automatic in order to prevent future confusion. The committee will have a meeting on this following Friday to consider volunteers for committees.
Chair Inouye will forward changes to the statewide election calendar to the Executive Board, since these changes will mean a postponement of the LAUC-D elections as well to June.
Professional Issues / PRDRC: K. Andrews stated that the Professional Issues Comm. has seen little recent activity, but that the Peer Review Documents Revision Committee has been meeting. The PRDRC has been going through instructions for the Review Board in order to simplify the procedure component. The represented and non-represented segments will be combined into one document, and the committee will be creating a short checklist of things to do for review initiators.
The PRDRC will also be looking at existing local position papers regarding several issues, including distinguished status. The UCD local language uses the term “distinguished” in the APM, unlike statewide documents; when the APM changes, annotations will be added and made into a new C-9.
Review Board: K. Darr stated that work on reviews was completed in March, and that this took a longer amount of time than usual because of the number of people up for review and the number of accelerations.
Additional Items: P. Inouye reported that S. Vella
will now be supervising the Information Desk and no longer acting as the point
person for Academic Personnel. Leslie Young and George Bynon now act as the
communication liaisons between Administration and LAUC.
4. Election Committee
Issues were covered in committee reports.
5. New Business
a. Faculty Status
In a local e-mail straw poll sent out by P. Inouye, respondents voted for/against the idea of pursuing faculty status for UC librarians. 33 responded, with 12 voting “yes” and 21 voting “no”; this means that about 2/3 of those responding voted against pursuing faculty status.
K. Andrews noted that it would be interesting to know what elements of faculty status the “yes” respondents considered most desirable, and whether or not those elements could be achieved in other ways. The committee gave various answers to the desirability of faculty status, including participation in Senate committees, increase in salaries, and influence on curriculum, though the imperative to publish at the same level was considered a hindrance for many librarians. At the Federation level, it was also noted that librarians aren’t currently eligible for P.I. status, which makes some forms of research particularly difficult to pursue; P.I. status would also make librarians eligible for Emeritus status. While Emeritus status can be and has been achieved by a few librarians at highest rank, this extra step has often been perceived by many potential candidates as unavailable to them.
b. Limitations on Professional Activities because of Library Technology Configurations
P. Inouye: Because of the way our ColdFusion server is configured, library staff cannot get into several important staff functions from home, including conference room assignments and forms for professional activities. D. King also noted that the ability to access the S:/ drive and Geckomail from Reference desk computers would be preferable because documents from both can be useful in reference transactions. However, since reference computers are on the same LAN as public terminals, Geckomail will probably continue to be blocked in the future. One suggestion for professional activities forms would be to put publicly accessible copies up on the LAUC page; but, these would need to be kept up to date with any changes on the administration site.
Another technology problem is related to trial software, since librarians cannot use this on their own machines without permission. There is now a test machine in Systems, but it is very slow. HSL does have a test machine for the library, but PSE librarians have had more difficulty obtaining access and would like to test software on their own machines. J. Tanno suggested inviting a representative from Systems to discuss these issues.
c. Recruitment Advisory Committees and LAUC
P. Inouye stated that at other UC campuses, the LAUC Executive Board talks to each potential librarian job candidate for ˝ hour. At UCD, G. Bynon usually gives a brief overview of LAUC and department heads may also mention the organization to the candidate. Question: should LAUC as an organization, or in the form of a small group of individuals, meet with candidates separately from Administration? Some Executive Board members expressed concern that the talk would turn into yet another interview for the candidate, or that there simply wouldn’t be enough time carved out for a meeting with LAUC. Various members’ full schedules also make convening the entire Board difficult for every candidate. G. Nichols suggested one LAUC member on every RAC be given the responsibility to serve as a LAUC representative for the candidate to answer any questions. P. Inouye also suggested inserting a short informal introduction to LAUC in between meetings on the interview day, either by a member of the RAC or another LAUC member. D. King stated that other LAUC web sites include a short “introduction to LAUC” page that explains what the organization does and how it is structured. Once could be constructed for LAUC-D and printed out for the candidate’s packet of materials. Members with suggestions for what should be presented on the website can e-mail D. King.
6. Other Items
The Board discussed potential questions for the upcoming Statewide LAUC panel with UC ULs. These concerned the impact of the state budget crisis, an update on the UC archive for Elsevier journals, the impact on collections by national labs, and the extent to which RLF resources should be cataloged with an attachment to one campus (i.e. to what extent are these “CDL Resources” as opposed to Berkeley or UCLA resources).
Meeting adjourned: 11:00 a.m.