LAUC-D General Membership
Meeting Minutes (Approved)
May 27, 2003
Present: P. Inouye (Chair), M. Sharrow, G. Yokote, G. Nichols, R.
Gustafson, J. Tanno, B. Hegenbart, K. Darr, J. Campbell, D. Michalski, P.
French, S. John, J. Boorkman, T. Malmgren, K. Andrews, S. Vella, R.
Castro, A. Lin, K. Kocher, S. Llano, K. Firestein, M. Meister, D. King
1. Call to Order: 9:35 AM by Chair P. Inouye
2. Agenda Review: The UL report will take place after announcements.
P. French introduced new Electronic Serials Librarian Sarah John.
Statewide Spring Assembly will take place on May 30 in San Diego.
4. Report from University Librarian
M. Sharrow reported that she would conduct a PowerPoint presentation on
the library budget to a number of deans and vice-chancellors. This
presentation will also be done for the library staff later in the summer.
The current process of print journal cancellations underscores the
importance of continuing dialogue with faculty, as it is necessary to put
budget cuts to the library in the context of cuts to the entire campus.
The WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) final report on UC
Davis is now available online (http://wasc.ucdavis.edu/links.cfm). The
library was given high marks.
5. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the last General Membership Meeting (March 18 ) were approved
as written. D. King reported that a new general membership roster is
available on the LAUC-D website
6. Spring Assembly
At Spring Assembly, the LAUC membership will conduct a conversation with
three University Librarians [Tom Leonard (B), Gerry Munoff (I), Brian
Schottlaender (SD)] to discuss a range of issues, including recent
dialogue about shared collections and facilities. Individual committee
reports are available on the Statewide website
(http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/committees.html). One important change is
the Committee on Committees will add the past LAUC president to its
officers, which is a change in the by-laws.
The Statewide Information Literacy Committee is developing key issues to
be considered by individual campuses. The all-campus group assembled by
the ULs is working in coordination with the LAUC group to ensure
A discussion of the Professional Governance Report proposed changes to
Position Paper #1 (http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/pg/index.html) was continued
from the previous general membership meeting. The language used to
describe “distinguished status” is a major point of discussion for
Position Paper #1. The position papers are intended to show LAUC’s view on
a subject, or reflect practice. The elimination of the distinguished step
from the position paper will not result in the deletion of criteria from
the salary scale. L. Kennedy pointed out that if the language is changed
at the statewide level, this could impact the interpretation of the paper
at the campus level. Five options were considered:
a) vote against the proposed revision
b) vote for the proposed revision
d) proposed a revision changing only one item (“capped by significant
e) suggest alternate language to the proposed revision
The membership discussed the individual revisions, voting in agreement of
the proposed name change and proposed changes to paragraph 5. There was a
lengthier discussion of proposed changes, with some members arguing in
favor of making the language applicable to promotion parallel to the
salary scale note. Others preferred more general language, with removal of
wording referring to the concept of a capstone achievement. LAUC documents
that are based specifically on a salary scale note could affect union
bargaining in the future. J. Tanno noted that the language, “capped by
significant achievement,” was LAUC wording only, and does not appear in
other UC documents.
Based on wording within the document, the membership also suggested
individual changes to wording. For example, the language in paragraph 8
could be more flexible (“career history of service” should also include
other categories like research, etc.). The difference
between “outstanding” and “distinguished” as terms of description past
Step 5 was debated, with some agreement that “outstanding” has more
general meaning at the local level. J. Tanno stated that “distinguished”
was intended to have a meaning beyond basic job service, reaching out to
the profession statewide and nationally.
VOTING ITEM: K. Andrews moved to amend the language in paragraph 4 to
read, “advancement to the top steps is reserved for those librarians whose
careers and continuing achievements can be regarded as distinguished.”
VOTING ITEM: A motion was made to delete paragraph 8 altogether, which
would be replaced by changes to language in paragraph 4 (which would make
paragraph 8 redundant).
UC Riverside drafted a proposal in opposition to the Patriot Act that will
be discussed and voted on at Spring Assembly. UCSB has already suggested
that the resolution be shortened to one page. LAUC-D members also
suggested various changes to the language to clarify the document, whose
aim and audience seemed unclear and overly general to several people. M.
Sharrow and L. Kennedy both noted that several other groups on campus and
system-wide are looking at issues surrounding the Patriot Act, and that it
may be fruitful to have a larger discussion / statement from both faculty
groups and LAUC. K. Andrews suggested that LAUC be encouraged to work with
other university system-wide groups for continued and coordinated action.
VOTING ITEM: P. Inouye moved that LAUC-D accept the basic argument of the
UCR resolution, but that UCD would propose language revision before
creating an official LAUC statement on the issue.
7. Committee Reports
a. Nominations and Elections Committee: A. Lin stated that next year’s
slate would be announced in 2 weeks.
b. Professional Issues Committee: K. Andrews announced that the questions
for Dan Greenstein’s talk were compiled electronically. Also, related to
the Mentoring Task Force, Ad Com has approved an informational general e-
mail list that will allow shared coordination, information, speaker
announcements, recommendations, cultural events, etc. This will be a
voluntary listserv, which R. Gustafson and L. Riggs have agreed to set up.
One possible new idea is an internship program for interested
staff/students, which would only be successful if library-wide and not
restricted to one department. This would be helpful for those attending
library school, since these programs are offering less “on the job” skills
work. R. Gustafson stated that this could have a possible tie-in with the
Program Committee, and L. Kennedy noted that in the past, the library did
have a formal rotation of internships in the library.
c. Peer Review Documents Revision Committee: J. Boorkman reported on the
three components of change outlined by the committee’s charge
units have not been officially mandated for inclusion (supervisory
permission only), and the Law Library has its own documentation.
The Committee also solicited comment on the subject of Interim Reviews,
since past Review Boards have recommended that Interim Reviews be
discontinued. P. Inouye stated that the process would need LAUC-wide
discussion and vote before these reviews could be changed to optional. J.
Tanno added that the reviews can be useful, more informal conversations
d. Research Committee: T. Malmgren reported on behalf of R. Davis that the
committee is working in conjunction with the Program Committee for a
session at the end of June on grant proposals.
e. Professional Activities Committee: S. Vella stated that the deadline
for travel receipts is June 10. After the 10th, the committee will have an
idea of how much PAC money will remain to redistribute. L. Kennedy added
that it is important to send in LAUC expenditures quickly, sense they take
longer to process.
f. Review Board: K. Darr reported that the committee completed the review
process in March.
g. Program Committee: K. Firestein reported that setting up dates for
programs can be difficult because of full schedules. Is it okay to
possibly schedule events in July/August? The membership agreed that this
would be acceptable.
8. Meeting Adjourned: 12:00 PM