LAUC-D General Membership

Meeting Minutes: November 25, 2003

Corrected and approved


Present: T. Malmgren (Chair), M. Sharrow, R. Gustafson, K. Firestein, J. Campbell, B. Hegenbart, J. Tanno, G. Bynon, G. Nichols, B. Heyer-Gray, C. Craig, R. Castro, P. French, S. John, M. Browne, S. Vella, L. Kennedy, M. Meister, K. Darr, D. Morrison, P. Inouye, O. Popa, E. Franco, N. Kushigian, G. Yokote, K. Kocher, D. Michalski, M. Appel, C. Kopper, D. King (Recorder)


1. Call to order: 9:05 AM by Chair T. Malmgren

2. Minutes of last meeting: Minutes from May 2003 approved without addition or correction

3. Report from UL:
M. Sharrow reported on her presentation to University deans, which helped raise awareness about library issues. This year, the library received a 6% base reduction, but collections were given a one-time exemption. The ULs met at a retreat, and finalized the white paper on shared collections with a few wording revisions. There was also discussion of the Elsevier contract, which is still in negotiation.

J. Tanno presented an update on SOPAG discussion about shared collections. There have been different interpretations of this across campuses, but SOPAG is working toward a common understanding. Special Collections interlibrary loan has taken place as a pilot project; this will be reviewed at a meeting in December. A steering committee has been appointed to implement the Government Documents shared collection plan.

4. Report from G. Bynon:
The 6% budget reductions were taken from O&E, as well as salary money from permanently given up open positions. The reductions were made without layoffs. The 2004/05 budget will likely be worse for the library and the entire campus, and there may be mid-year cuts from the State. G. Bynon addressed the impact of the budget crisis on staffing: every position that becomes vacant can generate savings, but the administrative policy has been to progress with recruitment where there is critical need. Since July, twelve staff members (including librarians) have been recruited. However, the 04/05 budget makes the situation less certain. Of the fourteen positions permanently given up, four were librarian (two from administration), and the rest were staff.

Members inquired about the best means to put the library’s case forward publicly and legislatively. Faculty have been hired in mass numbers, but the library’s budget is cut in comparison. Also, given the number of positions that has been lost, and is there any kind of analysis being done on workload? M. Sharrow responded: the Office of the President is working on communicating with the legislature, and other mechanisms of communication have included the Senate Library Committee and campus Vice-Chancellors and Deans. The Library has been mentioned in the Aggie and Dateline, and the Elsevier negotiations are receiving press and discussion from the faculty. For LAUC members, day-to-day conversation with faculty about library issues remains crucial. G. Bynon added: The positions that were surrendered had been open for some time, so there was not an immediate impact on current services or FTE. Analysis has taken place in the form of communication between department heads and the AULs.

5. Committee Reports:
     (a). Program Committee (R. Gustafson): The tour of the Mondavi Center received positive feedback, with 16 LAUC and 5 non-LAUC members attending. The committee has been discussing possible upcoming programs, including a program on publishing alternatives for faculty in light of the questions surrounding Elsevier journals.

The membership discussed the various struggles that faculty face when publishing in print or in open access models. For example, some professional organizations require publications to be in print because of different standards internationally. However, sometimes online publications can be more available depending on mail service and computer accessibility in other countries. M. Appel mentioned the collaboration of AAA and UC Press to create AnthroSource, which will provide online access at affordable print subscription prices. This raises questions about the communication between UC Press and CDL on pricing models pursued in the UC. Some members also expressed the concern that many societies have about losing membership when publications appear online. This should be reflected in some way by the pricing models and agreements among authors, publishers, societies, and libraries.

     (b). Review Board (N. Kushigian): The Board has looked at some appointments, and is waiting on salary actions.

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

6. LAUC Statewide Documents:
     (a). Information Literacy Task Force Report (
J. Tanno reported that the HOPS Information Literacy Common Interest Group has completed a report called “The Google Generation,” which will be shared with LAUC. Its content is related to recommendations from the LAUC Task Force. Regarding the Task Force Report, there was some question as to how feasible Recommendation 5 (info literacy discussion group at Statewide Assemblies or other venues) would be in the context of time limitations at assemblies. One recommendation from the membership was a potential e-mail discussion list, though this is already in place through other groups and might need more focus to be successful.


There was also discussion on Recommendation 6 in the report, regarding the establishment of a grant or award for information literacy issues. Some members argued that LAUC Research grants could be broadened in scope to simply include information literacy projects; others felt that since Research funds are already limited, it would be better to establish a separate award.

R. Gustafson suggested that the definition of information literacy as presented in Recommendation 2 be re-worded as less basic and more specific.

     (b). Statewide Diversity Committee Report (
L. Kennedy noted that there is now a listserv for this committee that includes both current and past members. Should this list be broadened, perhaps to include other LAUC members on a voluntary basis? There was informal agreement of the membership that opening the list to other members could be a useful way to exchange information.

     (c). Draft of Position Paper 1 (
At Fall Assembly, LAUC-D representatives must vote on this draft. L. Kennedy has also drafted an explanatory paper on PP1. The proposed revisions do not directly discuss the “distinguished step,” which may be addressed in a separate document.  The document can be used for guidance, but ultimately the criteria for advancement depend upon local language. Suggestions from the membership included leaving out all references to the APM in the document; discussion also took place on the distinction between “outstanding service” (old version) and “regarded as distinguished” (new version) in the language of proposed revision #8. Even though “distinguished” doesn’t refer to a formal “Distinguished Status” or barrier step, it can carry that connotation; it may also be too vague to provide sufficient guidance. Other members felt, however, that “distinguished” is the preferable term because it implies continuing achievement. The consensus of the membership was that the proposed wording change was acceptable, but that the paper still needs to clarify criteria better.

7. Meeting adjourned: 11:05 AM