LAUC-D General Membership Meeting, March 15, 2001: Minutes

 

Present: B. Haughton, C. LaRussa, C. Kopper, M. Wood, M. Appel, R. Davis, K. Chambers, R. Castro, B. Heyer-Grey, H. Rocke, S. Lamprecht, P. Inouye, M. Sharrow, D. Lundquist, M. Eldredge, P. French, G. Bynon, K. Firestein, J. Boorkman, O. Popa, K. Kocher, K. Darr, N. Kushigian, G. Nichols, L. Jerant, C. Howard, J. Sherlock, M. Meister, E. Franco, K. Andrews, Cathy Palmer (Statewide LAUC President), D. Goldstein (recorder)

 

 

1. Announcement: LAUC Statewide meeting to be held in Irvine, April 27, 2001.

 

2. Minutes of November 9, 2000 meeting approved.

 

3. Report by Marilyn Sharrow, University Librarian addressed the following topics:

a.       A presentation by the Campus Architect on present and future building on Campus. She has invited him to speak to the Library.

b.      OCLC's involvement with Bio One and other OCLC activities.

c.      Progress made toward acquiring an Integrated Library System; she thanked G. Yokote and her committee for their efforts.

d.      The Education Advisory Board for the Medical School. In particular, the question of whether first and second year medical students would remain on the Davis Campus or move to the Medical Campus in Sacramento and how this would affect the Health Sciences Library. Decision to be made by the end of the Medical School's Spring Quarter.

e.      Recruitment and Retention of Librarians. She emphasized that it is library policy always to consider whether a new opening could be properly filled by a beginning librarian.

 

4. K. Darr Reported on Picnic Day. Volunteers had met, drafted a proposal which has been approved by AdCom.

a.       There will be a 2-hour open house 11-1 with a couple of stations, including a multimedia presentation.

b.      There will be a Flier on the Library's history and its resources.

c.      Special Collections will mount a display featuring both its holdings and Picnic Days Past.

d.      Access will be restricted to the Core Lobby area and the Second Floor Landing.

e.      Computer area will be open.

f.       The Library's activities will be included in ASUCD's Picnic Day materials.

More Volunteers Welcome.

 

5. K. Firestein introduced the topic of Affirmative Action and the Day of Action Resolution. The Regents had decided not to address this topic in their current meeting and would probably do so in May. K. Firestein then introduced B. Haughton, as one of the co-Chairs of the Library Diversity Committee to speak to the topic. Haughton read the Library Diversity Committee's resolution supporting the Day of Action and referred to the "Report of the Chancellor's and Provost's Task Force on Faculty Recruitment," (See: http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/Resource/recruit/facultyrecruit/reportcvr.cfm). He stated that this report applied to senate faculty specifically and urged that a comparable statement be drafted that would apply to Librarians. Several aspects of this topic were discussed, including the Library's existing emphasis on diversity in hiring.

 

It was DECIDED to have either the PIC or an Ad Hoc Committee review the Faculty Recruitment Report consider how to draft a version that would apply to librarians and report back to LAUC.

 

6.                B. Heyer-Grey reported on the CDL -Hosted A&I Database Transition process. He provided a history of the CDL RFP process and explained that the A&I Database Transition was removed from that process and turned over to a committee. The CDL expects to cease hosting and maintaining databases by the end of 2002. (See http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/a-I-trans/ for a timeline). Between now and then, the committee will develop a procedure and select commercial vendors to supply the databases to CDL. B. Heyer-Grey emphasized that the committee's goals were:

a.       To provide as many databases under as few interfaces as possible without sacrificing functionality.

b.      To preserve and extend existing linking capabilities.

c.      To take a proactive role in improving vendor services

d.      To promote user-driven enhancements

Their report on available options is due July, 2001.

B. Heyer-Grey added that there would be no telnet access to these databases once the transition was complete.

The databases affected specifically by this process include: Medline, Biosis, Inspec, Mags, Psych, Current Contents, ABI Inform, Computer Database, National Newspaper Index, GeoRef.

 

7.                Cathy Palmer, President LAUC Statewide spoke about her campus visits and about the upcoming LAUC Assembly in Irvine. She described common themes and the individual character of the LAUC divisions that she visited and addressed the following issues:

a.       Criteria for the distinguished step. Following a resolution that emerged from the December LAUC Assembly, the Professional Governance Committee met with the University Librarians on Monday, March 12, to discuss the criteria used to evaluate librarians for the distinguished step. According to C. Palmer, a written response from the University Librarians emphasized the importance of activities under Criteria 2, 3, 4. They stated their belief that Librarians have a professional responsibility to share their expertise and that Criteria 2, 3, 4 are the means to fulfill this obligation to the profession. The University Librarians also asked how they can best facilitate activities in these areas (Criteria 2, 3, 4).

 

b.      Patrick Dawson chairs a task force composed of LAUC representatives to UL action groups (committees, task forces and the like). Their purpose is to evaluate the utility of the UL Advisory Structure from two perspectives. First, does a LAUC presence add a meaningful voice to the work of the Action Group. Second, is it useful to LAUC to have representatives on these groups.

 

c.      LAUC Committees: Do we need all the existing LAUC Committees. This is a significant workload issue for UC Librarians. Which areas are the most valuable? Where should LAUC be investing its energies? Example of the Diversity Committee which C. Palmer says most librarians think is important, but no-one wants to chair.

 

The discussion that followed touched on a number of issues including Librarians' involvement in Campus governance and Libraries needs for building space across the system. But it concentrated on Professional Governance Issues, specifically:

        LAUC's role in a three-way relationship with University Administration and UCAFT. LAUC and the UCAFT are trying to sort out what topics LAUC can and cannot discuss and how best to communicate with the UCAFT. Specifically what are the implications of now having two governing documents (one each for represented and non-represented librarians.)

 

        Criteria for Professional advancement and the perception/reality that the criteria are not the same on all campuses.

 

        The possibility of "decoupling" the distinguished designation from a specific salary step.

 

        Future Library staffing: specifically the issue of moving jobs out of the librarian series with the result that there may be professional staff in the library who are not in the librarian series and hence not part of LAUC as currently configured. Implications of this for LAUC and for Library Assistants.

 

        UL support for Criteria 2, 3, 4: What, specifically, is being/ can be done to facilitate librarians' activity in these areas. Options discussed included Administration making it possible for librarians to take the time and space needed to contribute in these ways; holding "how-to-do-it" workshops in which those seeking to develop such activities can receive guidance and advice.

 

8.      P. Inouye reported for the Peer Review Documents Review Committee. The first part of their charge, setting out the common understanding of the current review cycle has been completed and previously circulated. Discussion of the local language revealed that essentially valid language for represented librarians is currently embedded in a document (the APM) which does not apply to represented librarians. It needs to be relocated to an acceptable place--perhaps as annotations to the MOU. Discussion continued on the best way to accomplish this change, and the problems that might arise. The discussion further reflect the participants' interest in having a single Peer Review Document for Represented and Non-Represented Librarians.

 

9.      The Distinguished Librarians Award (UCD) was also discussed. Considerable disagreement on whether it was related to, or entirely separate from the Peer Review Process.

 

10.   The Distinguished Step was discussed again. This time, it was suggested that the meaning of distinguished needs to be reconceptualized. There were three principal issues raised at this time.

 

a.       Does (or should) the distinguished step depend on an especially significant achievement completed during the review cycle prior to its being awarded, or should it be based on an assessment of an entire career? There was considerable disagreement as to current practice.

 

b.      Use of the term distinguished is a local one. At UCOP it is referred to as the "Barrier" step.

 

c.      What sort of recognition can/should there be for distinguished librarians? Some members felt we need some sort of mechanism/practice to acknowledge their achievement.

 

11.   Next meeting planned for late April.

12.   Meeting Adjourned.