LAUC-D General Membership
Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2004
Present: T. Malmgren (Chair), J. Tanno, G. Nichols, R. Gustafson, K. Firestein, K. Kocher, J. Stratford, D. Goldstein, B. Heyer-Gray, S. John, E. Franco, M. Browne, C. Craig, M. Meister, J. Sterlock, B. Haughton, K. Andrews, N. Kushigian, J. Janes, D. Morrison, J. Campbell, L. Spagnolo, X. Li, J. Boorkman, P. French, K. Darr, G. Yokote, P. Inouye, G. Bynon, D. King (recorder); 30 in total attendance
1. Call to order: 2:05 PM
2. Minutes from last meeting (March 23, 2004): Approved with one correction
3. LAUC Spring Assembly:
There have been no applications for the LAUC travel award this year. If you are interested, please turn in an essay to Linda Kennedy within a few days. The Spring Assembly website has details about the upcoming meeting (http://laucr.ucr.edu/LAUCSpring04/). D. King has offered to serve as web manager for the LAUC-D website this coming year. When the bylaws are next reviewed, this is a position that will likely become more formalized.
4. University Librarian Report (J. Tanno):
M. Sharrow was unable to attend the meeting. J. Tanno
reported on recent SOPAG activities; The ULs will be meeting separately and in
a joint session. Plans for a workshop on Government Information shared
collections are going well and will be announced soon. The HOPS Information
Literacy Common Interest Group (http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/hops/infolit/)
is being formed. A statewide LAUC representative will also be a member of the
group. The report of the Digital Resources Task Force (http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/vrtf/)
is now under discussion.
5. Committee Reports
(a). Statewide Library Plans and Policies (J. Stratford): There was a conference call in April of the committee. Members discussed the impact of the Elsevier contract and a range of issues associated with the shift to electronic journals. On one hand, present collection development models are shifting bibliographers to a generalist public services role. But, the level of reference questions is growing in complexity. There is a greater need for in-depth subject consultations beyond the reference desk, and electronic resources seem to be causing more questions than answers. Some campuses are consolidating subject reference desks, while others are separating them, so there is no consistent policy across the system.
(b). Professional Issues (P. French): No current activity.
(c). Program Committee (R. Gustafson): Many people attended the journals pricing presentation with Ted Bergstrom, but most of them were library staff and not faculty. The committee is still planning an open access models discussion, but needs more H/SS speakers (send ideas to R. Gustafson).
(d). Research Committee (D. Goldstein): There have been no local applications. The Statewide committee is still making recommendations on received proposals.
(e). Professional Activities (C. Craig): Deadlines for this year’s funding are fast approaching. Please see e-mail reminder for the dates.
(f). Review Board (N. Kushigian): The committee is mostly done for the year. There have been many temporary appointments.
7. New Business
(a). Nominations/Elections (D. Morrison): E-mail was sent to the membership regarding the Statewide election with an overview of the slate. The election ends on June 10 for both state and local. The committee is pleased by the number of volunteers from LAUC-D willing to serve. Some appointments will be reviewed in August by the incoming Executive Board. D. Morrison passed out the proposed slate for elections to the membership, and the floor was opened for further nominations. There were no additional nominations, so the slate will be sent out as written.
(b). Position Paper Review Task Force
The Statewide task force has requested one action for the May assembly—whether or not to accept proposed recommendations for position papers. The proposed changes look at the definition of what position papers are, and what they should accomplish. One of the changes is that a position paper only represents the views of the organization at a specific time—there is no need to keep revising it. A paper can be archived or “retired” if it no longer represents the membership. But, the membership can re-write another paper to address a particular issue.
The membership discussed the revisions, pointing out two points of ambiguity. One regards the wording for “archived” as opposed to “retired” documents. What is the difference, and when would each be used? Another point of confusion was the question of voting on changes. Would the entire LAUC membership vote at the campus level, or would the only official vote take place at Statewide assembly? T. Malmgren will try to get clarification on this at the assembly. Beyond these points of clarification, the LAUC-D membership unanimously voted to accept the proposed recommendations.
(c). Other announcements
There will be a summer LAUC general membership meeting to discuss proposed revisions to PRDRC documents. There was discussion on this last year, but no resolution. G. Bynon pointed out that any suggested changes to the review process would start a lengthy process and would probably not be implemented this coming year. After endorsement by the membership, the changes must be sent to AdCom, the Vice-Provost’s office, and then adopted.
8. Meeting adjourned: 2:40 PM