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.
Discussion:
*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 (http://laucd.lib.ucdavis.edu/LRR/index.html). 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