LAUC-D Executive Board Meeting
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