LAUC-D General Membership Meeting Minutes

August 2, 2004

Approved and corrected


Present: T. Malmgren (Chair), M. Sharrow, G. Bynon, G. Yokote, K. Kocher, B. Swanson, B. Hegenbart, S. John, P. French, R. Gustafson, M. Appel, K. Stroud, B. Heyer-Gray, J. Tanno, R. Davis, J. Boorkman, K. Darr, A. Lin, B. Haughton, M. Meister, C. Craig, E. Franco, L. Kennedy, D. King (Recorder): 24 in attendance

1. Call to order: 2:30 PM (Malmgren)

2. Announcements:
T. Malmgren announced that AdCom has raised the PAC amount for travel to $600 for this year. R. Davis announced that an Extreme Google class will be offered in October at Sacramento Public Library. Registration is $75, and the class was very useful in the past.

3. Minutes from the last General meeting, from May 5, 2004, were approved as distributed.

4. Report from University Librarian (M. Sharrow)
The card catalog on the first floor of Shields will be dismantled by Fall because the space is now needed. It has not been updated since 2002, and very few people use it. UCD is the last library in the UC system to remove its card catalog. The carpet will be taken out in that location. Patrons may also use laptops in the area.

There are several recruitments in process, including AUL for Administrative Services and two instruction librarians. The campus has also earmarked money for a full-time library development director.

G. Bynon continued with a budget report. The campus budget planning has been very efficient. It started in early winter quarter, and we now have a reduction plan based on a projected 6% across the board. This includes state money, and will be a significant hit to collections and staff. We have received some one-time money from the Provost to soften the effect on collections. Overall, the situation won’t be any worse than what we have already planned for.

J. Tanno reported on the timeline for conversion to ALEPH 16. Currently, we are ahead of schedule, and will have a longer window for testing this time. The planned date for conversion is November 14.

G. Yokote noted that formal usability testing for ALEPH 16 will work better in winter quarter to give people a chance to get used to it. Several other things are happening in fall, including more enhancements to Harvest Portal like the “my e-list” option. The Web Editorial Board and the Design Team have been working hard to change the design of the library’s web presence in a logical way. Some adjustments still need to be made, but the new look will debut in fall quarter.

4. PRDRC discussion
In June, the recommendations of the ad Hoc Peer Review Documents Review Committee were submitted to LAUC-D after a subcommittee edited documents for consistency with local language in the MOU and APM. The LAUC-D General Membership reviewed the recommendations one by one and voted on them. See below for each lettered item.

Committee Charge 1: Review the document, which consolidates the procedures and steps of the process for non-represented and represented Librarians, which was created by Ken Firestein and make a final recommendation for its use.

(a). “Recommend that the consolidated document be accepted and titled: University of California, Davis, General Library, Peer Review Documents: Performance Evaluation of Appointees Reviewed in the Librarians Series (PEARLS).”

Vote: Approved unanimously

(b). “Recommend that the name of the Review Board be changed to: LAUC-D Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Advancement (CAPA).”

Discussion of recommendation: This is a more descriptive name, and other campuses use CAPA instead of “Review Board” to describe the same entity.

Vote: Approved unanimously



Committee Charge 2: Review the local language, which currently annotates the Academic Personnel Manual (APM and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Make recommendations for additions, deletions or revisions to the local language. In your review, take into consideration the Davis Division’s discussions thus far. Those discussions have touched on both the clarity of the language and the current structure of our documentation.

Discussion: L. Kennedy suggested adding the “candidate name” line across all forms for clarity and consistency.

(a). “Recommend that the attached revision of the Disqualification Statement Form be accepted.”

Vote: Approved unanimously

(b). “Recommend that the attached revision of the Checklist of Documentation be accepted.”

Vote: Approved unanimously
(c). “Recommend that the attached Checklist for Librarians with Salary Action Reviews 4/28/03 be added to the C-9 documentation.”

Discussion: This is the checklist for librarians under review. It is similar to the draft Review Procedures, but pulled together in a different way.
*The layout makes it look like everything is due in October. We should consider adding other dates to be clearer.
*A calendar with dates should be added on the first page of PEARLS, or at least add a line that the documents are arranged in calendar (or sequential) order.
*The one day review period sounds too short; it should be “at least” one day instead.

Vote: Postponed, since all members apparently did not receive this via e-mail. Keeping wording changes and suggestions in mind, this will be sent out again to the membership for review.

(d). “Recommend clarification be added to the Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarians Series in the calendar of procedures.”

Discussion: This is just a clarification of existing practice for review initiators concerning procedures for disqualification statement forms and allowing the addition of other names by the initiator if appropriate.

Vote: Approved unanimously

(e). “Recommend that the Biography Form be removed from the list of enclosures in a Review Packet for non-Represented librarians.”

Vote: Deferred, since the Biography Form will be changed according to Provost’s request.

(f). “Recommend that the Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarian Series and local language in C-9 be updated to reflect current organizational titles, and Library Salary Scale steps.”

Discussion: G. Bynon suggested a friendly amendment to change language referring to the “Deputy University Librarian” to “Library Administrative Office.”

Vote: Approved unanimously


Committee Charge 3: Consider whether the LAUC Position Papers should be incorporated into our local language or cited as an outside source of information.

(a). “Recommend that the LAUC-D Position Papers be excluded from the C-9 local language.”

Vote: Approved unanimously


General discussion of draft PEARLS documents:

* There are a few typos on page 5 that can be corrected.
*Currently, interim review procedures provide no guidance on issues of non-concurrence. The documents should discuss what to do in these cases.
* The documentation refers to consultation between the review initiator and the AUL (p.4) to ascertain the intended recommendation. But, this is prior to the completion of the packet, and section IV.B (p.11) clearly states that the objective appraisal of a candidate should be based solely on the review packet. The consultation prior to its completion therefore should not occur.
*This suggestion speaks to actually changing the review process, and is beyond the scope of the PRDRC. It should be sent to Executive Board for consideration by another committee.
*One aspect of language not included here is the difference between APM 690 and local language. The distinguished step language should be reviewed to make sure it is consistent.

G. Bynon expressed thanks to Joanne Boorkman and the PRDRC for their hard work, and T. Malmgren officially dismissed the committee.

5. Committee Reports

Professional Issues (P. French): Nothing to report.

Program Committee (R. Gustafson): The tour of the ARC was the last of the programs for this year, and will be included in the year-end report. David Michalski is the incoming chair.

Professional Activities (C. Craig): The remaining PAC funds will be dispersed at the end of the year.

6. New Business
(a). Spring Executive Board: There is a motion that a list be compiled of librarian’s names, rank, and step across the system. This list would be available, but not public to everyone. This will be discussed on Aug. 20 at the transitional meeting. This proposal comes out of a desire for more information on system-wide peer review and how the new steps are working. Executive board members have backed away from some aspects of the original proposal out of concern for privacy. The names will most likely now be removed from the statistics because of this.

(b). R. Davis attended a session of librarian recruitment at the Medical Library Association conference. What can LAUC as an association do to encourage library science as a field? What can we do locally across disciplines? Here are some suggestions for this campus:

*an annual event with focus on recruitment/advertising to campus about going into the field
*helping library assistants, perhaps through LAUC-sponsored scholarships
*consider a mentoring program to help new librarians through the review process and other professional issues.

*UCSB has a library fellow similar to a residency to train new librarians. This is both a training program and a recruitment opportunity.
*Many UC Davis undergraduates have actually become librarians.
*There was a joint LAUC task force on this issue three years ago. It would be useful to review the original report online ( The ACRL task force also created a good report.
*There isn’t any money for funding library school attendance by staff, but there is some funding for courses related to work and flex schedule.
*Could LAUC fund some basic materials like textbooks and small pots of money? Such a proposal could be reviewed by Professional Issues or a special task force.

7. Meeting adjourned: 4:00 PM