LAUC-D Executive Board Meeting

April 9, 2004


Approved and corrected

 

Present: B. Heyer-Gray (Vice-Chair), R. Gustafson, C. Craig, D. Morrison, N. Kushigian, D. King (Recorder)

 

1. Call to order: 9:10 AM

 

2. Minutes from last meeting (March): Approved with no corrections

3. Committee Reports:
(a). Nominations and Elections (D. Morrison): The statewide slate has now come out. There have been a few responses to the first call for the local slate; another reminder will be sent out before the deadline on April 15. Do members who wish to nominate someone else have to notify the nominee first? The Executive Board agreed that more standard practice is to phone the nominee after his/her name has been volunteered to verify interest in the position. This is the job of the committee, not the nominator. After the slate has been compiled, Executive Board approves it before being sent out to the membership for a vote.

There is only one LAUC Statewide opening for UCD on the slate this year. On the ballot, do we also need to add openings in other statewide groups (i.e. SOPAG)? B. Heyer-Gray will speak to Linda Kennedy about the process on this.

(b). Review Board (N. Kushigian): All work has been completed on packets.

(c). Program Committee (R. Gustafson): There is an upcoming talk by Ted Bergstrom on April 14 regarding academic journal pricing. The committee has received RSVPs mostly from librarians so far. An attachment of the flier advertising the event will be sent out to the membership. The committee is still planning a panel on open access publishing, but the date may be pushed back to late May or June.

4. Peer Review Documents Review/Revision Committee (PRDRC) Documents:
Documents from the PRDRC were sent to Executive Board members for review; shall they be presented to the general membership for a vote? Is this a usable document as written?  Discussion by Board members:

* We can only change the local language, not language in the APM. The MOU is for the entire system, but additional language can be negotiated for it. We can only change the local language we use for guidance.
* Right now, local language has insufficient detail about acceleration in comparison to the APM. This has been an issue for the Review Board, because sometimes letters have mistakenly used the wrong language.
* The proposed revision brings the local C-9 procedures, Annotated APM and Annotated MOU into one document. The concept of merging them has met with both agreement and disagreement from the membership in the past.
* One contention against merging the documents is that the “spirit is the same” in terms of meaning. However, if a review is contested, the language is vague and broader in the local language, and this makes the process more difficult.
* If the documents are brought before the membership for discussion, it is important to get to the point of a vote. It might be useful to provide the membership with some background on the documents beforehand, since there are several new members. A more precise list of items to be specifically voted on by the membership will help hasten the voting process.
* B. Heyer-Gray will ask Chair T. Malmgren to post K. Firestein’s draft of the merged documents to the membership for review before any vote takes place.

5. Meeting adjourned: 10:15 AM