LAUC-D General Membership
Present: P. Inouye (Chair) R. Davis, N. Kushigian, K. Firestein, B. Hegenbart, J. Tanno, M. Sharrow (University Librarian), T. Malmgren, R. Castro, J. Campbell, M. Appel, J. Boorkman, B. Heyer-Grey, G. Bynon, K. Andrews, L. Jerant, A. Lin, R. Gustafson, P. Inouye, S. Llano, D. Johnson, K. Darr, H. Rocke, L. Kennedy, D. Johnson, O. Popa, M. Meister, J. Sherlock, G. Nichols, D. King (Recorder)
1. Call to order: 9:10 AM by Chair P. Inouye
2. Announcements and additions to the agenda:
Myra Appel discussed the serials cancellation project in regard to library science journals and memberships. These are mostly funded under the H/SS budget, and she is compiling a list of titles for cancellation consideration. The list will probably be an Excel spreadsheet, and when it is complete members may send comments to her regarding what titles they would like to cancel and/or retain.
N. Kushigian suggested that since many librarians subscribe as individuals to certain publications, members could internally circulate these in light of possible institutional cancellations. Several members mentioned a desire to keep this potential process informal, since the donation of personal copies for institutional use is problematic for several reasons.
Joanne Boorkman introduced Deanna Johnson, a new librarian at the Health Sciences Library.
3. Secretary’s Report
The minutes for the November 20, 2002 General Membership meeting were passed with two additions. Minutes available at: http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/LAUCD/GeneralMembership/GenlMemMtg112002.htm
A general membership roster is being compiled from the LAUC-D listserv, which will then be posted on the website.
4. University Librarian’s Report (Marilyn Sharrow)
Representatives from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) visited campus March 12-14 in order to gauge undergraduate instruction effectiveness. They were shown the Library Instruction Lab, and overall praised the campus for its instruction efforts. Further collaboration between the Library and IT were encouraged.
On March 26, a literary dinner will take place featuring UCD Sociology Professor Laura Grindstaff. She will give a talk on reality television talk shows.
The draft Campus Strategic Plan is now available from the Provost [http://strategicplan.ucdavis.edu/]. The University Library is discussed in sections regarding technology and collections.
The budget remains uncertain because of ongoing changes from the state. The library is currently expecting around a 6.9% giveback of funds, to be spread throughout a three-year period.
5. LAUC-D Chair’s
There will be an all-campus Privacy Liaison Group interested in looking at the privacy issues website for SOPAG/CDL. This group will attempt to make the site more accessible and updated, with information on the Patriot Act and local documents.
The LAUC statewide Information Literacy Committee has discussed the possible goal of getting a faculty member on the committee. When taken to the Education Policy Group (Academic Senate), the response was to wait for the issue to “bubble up” at the individual campuses. M. Sharrow noted that the Senate Library Committee at UCD has in the past not wished to extend library courses beyond what is already done. L. Kennedy proposed a possible general policy statement as an initial LAUC goal, and K. Firestein added that more active lobbying with faculty could lead to more mandated library instruction time in the classroom. Chair Inouye concluded by saying she would take these suggestions to statewide Executive Board, and discuss instruction issues further with S. Vella.
The LAUC Committee on Professional Governance charge dealt in part with the question of faculty status for librarians. P. Inouye asked the membership if it desired this charge to continue. Several members expressed a desire to table the charge for now and put more energy into dealing with issues within the Librarian series itself. J. Boorkman pointed out that there are strict standards in the UC system on Senate faculty, including teaching for credit, research, etc., and the expected terminal degree is the Ph.D. Given this, there are large barriers to changing librarian status. However, K. Firestein stated that state universities do not always see the difference in academic degrees as a barrier, and that the current status of librarians affects their ability to construct information literacy courses for academic credit.
6. New Business:
P. Inouye asked membership to consider the issue of decoupling the distinguished step from the salary scale, and what the meaning of the distinguished step would be if this were the case. Some members felt that there is a problem with the attachment to salary, making it more desirable to make the step more of a recognition or award given by colleagues in individual LAUCs. Others pointed out that when tied to the review process, the distinguished step comes to the attention of the larger campus community and enhances the status of the profession. However, the review process itself is different for librarians (as opposed to faculty), and members at other campuses have expressed difficulty actually achieving the status.
One point of confusion is the notion of a “capstone” achievement at the end of the career. Some members felt that the traditional models of achievement should be more flexible, so that librarians won’t have to artificially plan for a single important achievement at the end of their careers. The Capstone achievement is looked on as a major hurdle at different campuses. J. Tanno pointed out that Distinguished status is not supposed to be based simply on one accomplishment, but on the entirety of a career along with other factors. The actual document language never refers to a capstone achievement, instead requiring “a significant achievement since attainment of Step 4.” In order to improve understanding of promotion, some members expressed a desire for a study or chart of different factors in reviews system-wide. There were several stated difficulties with this proposal, though, largely because individual librarians’ review documents are private.
P. Inouye asked the membership, “should LAUC remove concept of a ‘capstone achievement’ from its language?” The division consensus was yes, the language should be removed. The distinguished status should be based on continuous distinguished activity throughout one’s career rather than on one specific achievement. However, the status should be conferred at the top of the scale.
A related question regarded what criteria should then be required for promotion beyond Step 5 (after the Distinguished Step). The wording in the APM is vague and may be interpreted in different ways. The document says that this step is granted on “continuing growth and development in contributions to the profession.” Wording to the APM requires union bargaining, though, and would take some time. Several members felt that no special language is needed beyond what is already in the wording, though it was also suggested that “continuing achievement” also be added.
7. Old Business
There was no reported old business.
8. Committee Reports
Research Committee: R. Davis reported that the committee recently reviewed proposals for funding. Recommendations will be sent to statewide in April. There were only three proposals this year, so every campus will be encouraged to publicize proposal opportunities more in the future. Locally, there will be a planned authors program featuring librarians who have been funded in the past, possibly at the end of April.
Review Board: N. Kushigian reported that the Board is nearing the end of reviews for this year (there were twelve). UCSF has asked UCD to assist in their review process because of the small size of their LAUC division.
Program Committee: R. Gustafson stated that the committee is hoping to present a new lunch and chat session on a Friday in April. She encouraged members to suggest possible future speakers in an area of interest.
9. Meeting was adjourned by P. Inouye at 11:00 AM.