LAUC-SC Executive Board Minutes 6-5-08

LAUC-Santa Cruz Executive Board Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2008

Present: Kerry Scott (Chair), Frank Gravier (Vice Chair), Sue Perry (CAPA Chair), Christy Hightower (Secretary), and member Ginny Steel.
Absent: Danielle Kane (General Committee Chair).

1. Check-in from the local R&PD task force (Task Force Chair Scott, members Gravier, Hightower and Lyons). Scott reported that the task force met recently and that the group is now in the process of drafting their report.  Scott met with Connie Croker in Financial Services this week and has another meeting scheduled with her next week to gather some additional data. It was confirmed that the focus of this group's work is the local landscape of research and professional development, and that the statewide R&PD processes are not included.

2. Discussion of next steps for feedback to management about secondary supervisors. The group briefly explored some of the questions raised by UL Steel in the May 22 General Membership Meeting regarding secondary supervisors, and discussed how best to provide feedback to management. During these discussions the importance of the LAUC representative to the strategic planning process, and the board's appreciation for the opportunity to have a LAUC member participate, reemerged. Steel reported that the library's strategic planning sessions with a consultant are tentatively planned to start at the end of August or the beginning of September. Steel requested that LAUC provide some suggestions and guidance for how secondary supervisors might work best during this interim period between now and the launch of whatever new structure arises from strategic planning. ACTION: The LAUC executive board will draft a memo to UL Steel by July 1 that suggests an interim strategy for secondary supervisors and that also outlines some preliminary thoughts about best practices on the topic that may help inform the strategic planning process.

3. Discussion of LAUC's goals and expectations for training for review initiators.  Should we hold a focus group of new review initiators to get their input? The group discussed the topic, including the importance of supporting and training new review initiators, the importance of fostering a shared understanding among review initiators on the review process and on best practices in library management in general, and the desirability of capturing the expertise of veteran review initiator Cheryl Gomez on this issue before her retirement on July 1.

ACTIONS: 1) CAPA Chair Perry will interview Gomez to document her supervisory best practices for distribution to the membership. 2) the Executive Board will convene a focus group of both new and experienced review initiators to listen to their current needs and to hear their suggestions of what works well.  Some of the desired outcomes of the focus group might be a Tips Sheet of practical things that work well, a list of some general best practices, and a list of training/information needs for further follow up. 3) CAPA will work on organizing some informal "brown bag" meetings for review initiators that will focus on the review process and the content of the review letters, for example what activities are most appropriate to put in what categories, and what level of documentation is appropriate.

4. Discussion of proposal to survey LAUC members about ways to improve communication between review initiators and librarians around goals and objectives, focus/priorities, workload, etc. This proposal was an outgrowth of the fact that at the May 22 membership meeting four people commented on the desirability of having a written goals and objectives process between librarians and their review initiators.  After discussion it was decided that LAUC would survey the membership on ways to improve communication that included, but was not restricted to, checking in with written goals.  ACTION: Gravier will draft a survey for review by the Executive Board.

5. Discussion of proposal that LAUC make a statement about the fact that campus has classified the library as a non-teaching unit and its budgetary implications. Steel mentioned that this classification is not a formal one, but rather a pragmatic one that has been used for this round of budget cuts.  Discussion and action on this item was then deferred since the member who made the proposal could not attend this meeting.

Minutes by Hightower