LAUC Executive Meeting
12 April 2011
Present: Nicole Lawson (Chair), Annette Marines (Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect), Nicholas Meriwether (Secretary), Greg Careaga (CAPA Chair).
Abesent: Kerry Scott (General Committee Chair), Sarah Troy (Immediate Past Chair).
1. Announcements (all): California Conference on Library Instruction spring workshop will be held in Santa Cruz; strong program this year, with three speakers; topics are collaboration, online instruction, writing and information literacy. Interested persons should contact Annette.
2. Approval of Minutes , 3/3 (all): Minutes approved and posted.
3. CWC Update (AM): No meeting recently, but announced a campus-wide survey regarding morale. Annette sent some suggestions, as did the faculty rep; not sure when it will go out. Questions are good, especially in light of the budget. Next meeting is soon.
4. Secondary Supervisor Discussion Update (NL/GC): Meeting happened on the March 19; Greg and Kate spearheaded the brown bag. Sparsely attended due to timing (last day before spring quarter). General sense was that suggestion was reasonable but far from a quorum. Next step is formal poll before the spring election. Nicole will set up on Survey Monkey, asking about changing the language in PAPAREPNEW regarding the secondary supervisor role to make it less onerous, so as to cut down on delays and clarify role within the review. Also discussed changing the term “secondary” supervisor, because all assignments are equally important. The review initiator role will remain, but management of multiple assignments will shift to more of a team effort, and teams will span divisions and bring greater unity and understanding throughout the library. In discussion, the reorganization has taken more time than anticipated, and the absence of information about it from LMG may affect the membership’s ability to hold a meaningful conversation about roles, teams, departments, and team leaders in the reorganization. Fear is that the model that LAUC is about to approve may be rapidly obsolete. Upshot: Nicole to send out survey and make “not enough info” an option.
5. Spring General Membership Meeting Date and Agenda (all): Need to set a date and agenda; will happen in lieu of Exec Board meeting, unless the Board deems one necessary; consensus is to meet May 18, after lunch, for 90 minutes. May 19 is the next all-staff meeting.
6. LAUC Assembly Update (NL): Assembly happened on March 10 and on the whole went well. It was fairly well organized and featured presentations by Janet Lockwood and Dan Greenstein via Skype; some issues with the video but audio was fine. Janet gave a fifteen-minute presentation regarding the new vice provost, Susan Carlson, who has joined academic personnel; she works with faculty to diversify their work in the sciences. Other new hires are a compensations analyst and a labor relations coordinator. One big initiative proposed by Michael Yonezawa is to collect university diversity data; he worked with UCOP to use their data, drawn from two reports: payroll snapshots from April 2010 and October 2010. These show that 26 librarians left during that time with 16 new hires, for a net loss of 11 people. These reports will be posted and made public. Interim University Diversity Coordinator Jesse Bernal reported on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion Initiative; a committee was formed to look at national models to improve campus climate and deploy them within UC. The committee includes outside members, including representatives from the JDL and NAACP. A brief update on R&PD followed. Dan Greenstein’s report on online pilot program was 15 minutes. Thirty faculty were picked to serve; framework for pilot is set, but with minimal librarian input. He recommended that librarians look at the list and discuss the project with those faculty representatives with whom they had a relationship. Resolutions on the budget were discussed, with the consensus that LAUC should say something but that it should be made more concrete. Discussion over resolutions recognizing retiring members took up a fair amount of time, including the propriety of such resolutions and how to make them. Changes to campus funding explained; should benefit UCSC. No effect on CDL. There was no discussion of the UL’s Distinguished Step Task Force.
Bruce Miller’s presentation, focused on Next Gen Technical Services, was deemed controversial in tone though not content; he was substituting for Brian Schottlaender. Miller noted that the time for discussion had passed and criticism was no longer appropriate. Both the NGTS and SLASIAC reports have now largely converged—i.e., in order to implement the cost-cutting measures adumbrated in the SLASIAC report requires mechanisms proposed in the NGTS report. For NGTS, the UL’s have released their priorities, based on the Phase II reports. Power of Three groups have been established to implement specific high and medium priorities; these will be made up of one person from SOPAG and two from ACGs. There will also be Lightning Bolt teams. A question was raised about how system-wide implementation of tech services would work; the SLASIAC planning task force report will address this. Communication around NGTS, as with so many large-scale initiatives, seems to be the underlying issue; concerns especially focus on how feedback from lower echelons can be effectively conveyed.
Gene Lucas of UCSB spoke about the SLASIAC Task Force Interim Report; message overall was support for shared services and space, more digital capacity and greater offsite storage on every campus; anticipate $52M in savings, but not entirely clear as to how this will be achieved, nor are start-up costs clear. SLASIAC task force report is finalized now; implementation will begin in Sept.-October. There are some questions about the executive function mentioned in the Report; the idea is the creation of an executive over all the libraries at UCOP; UL’s are concerned because of autonomy issues; the lack of resolution means that it may be taken out of final report. One comment made was that UC seems to be both centralizing and decentralizing, and the consensus was that yes, UC is a paradox. There were seven breakout groups that afternoon; their group reports are now posted to LAUC Assembly blog, along with video of the three presentations: http://laucassembly.blogspot.com/.The Executive Board meeting the next day was largely a wrap-up of issues from the previous day’s presentation by Miller and ensuing conversation. An ad hoc committee was formed on the future of the Assembly, with Annette serving as a member. Virtual meetings as a response to difficulties in travel was discussed; consensus is that in-person meetings should be limited to easily-accessible campuses, eg not UCSB. There was also some discussion of the Distinguished Step Task Force in the Exec Board meeting; LAUC’s input has been received. There is interest in creating an ad hoc outstanding service award committee, but wants to be sure that there is funding for this. Several campuses are looking for ULs.
7. Chair's Report (NL): See Assembly update.
8. Vice Chair's Report (AM): At the Faculty Senate meeting, changes to the Committee on Libraries were approved; now named the Committee on Libraries and Scholarly Communication; a relatively calm meeting.
9. CAPA Chair's Report (GC): Two meetings have been held; reviewed benchmarks and timeline for reviews. First working meeting will happen this week, with 3 out of 8 files received; making progress.
10. General Committee Chair's Report (NL for KPS): She is rescheduling social hour; elections committee has been formed and needs to be on the agenda for the spring general membership meeting; the committee consists of Kerry, Sarah and Nicole.
11. Secretary's Report (NM): No report.