LAUC General Membership Meeting
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
McHenry Instruction Room (2353)
1. Announcements (All): Greg Careaga announced the purchase of an iPad 2 for librarians to use for evaluation and asked for suggestions on desired apps.
2. Changes to PAPARENEW/LS, Vote Results & Discussion (NL/All): Survey sent out to membership to vote on changes and suggest alternate language for the term secondary supervisor; twelve votes, ten in favor and two opposed, so the changes carried. Numerous alternate terms were suggested, including Adjunct Supervisor, Co-Supervisor, Auxiliary, etc. Those suggestions will be forwarded to Library Admin. for evaluation. Concerns focused on Section 3.6 Subsection B, the Secondary Supervisor and Review Initiator meeting; concerns focused on presence of candidate at that meeting. Discussion was mixed; some felt that the candidate should be actively engaged in communication with both RI and SS throughout the review period, and that some discussion of the candidate may need to be without the candidate present; others felt that the candidate should have as much input as possible, and that confidential meetings could be held regardless. One concern was that formalizing this led to an imbalance in the review process. Nicole agreed to forward these concerns to Admin. Greg noted that part of the intent was to streamline the process to ensure that the RI and SS could work together to facilitate the review process, perhaps collaborating on certain parts of the review; he agreed to review the language to ascertain the intent and discuss with Kate. Sue noted that the purpose was to help Librarians balance primary and secondary aspects of jobs.
3. CWC Report (AM): Meeting less frequently this year; last meeting was in February and spring meeting has not yet occurred. The CWC was asked for questions for a campus survey; unsure as to whether it was a diversity or campus climate survey, and also not sure what final results were, if any. Discussion ensued over which survey this may have been.
4. Committee on Diversity Report (CH): This committee was charged to survey LAUC membership regarding the current state of diversity among UC librarians and compare that data to campus, state and national data. The survey should be made available shortly, and some incentive for completion should be offered. Christie noted that UNC had received an IMLS grant to study that issue and found that librarians were not especially diverse; unclear as to whether the outcome of this will be any different. Annette added that at the system-wide meeting, this was discussed as a census, not a survey, in order to capture accurate and complete data, not only for diversity but language skills, etc. Christie noted that the survey had been generated by the chair and not shared with other committee members; Nicole noted that it had been circulated to statewide LAUC executives. In response to comments regarding useful additional data, Christie said that she would investigate whether further questions could be added.
5. R&PD Committee Report (KL): Ken reported that a second call for applications went out, after six research grant applications had been received. Questions on two resulted in one being withdrawn and the other did not respond. This freed up more money, hence the second call; the review was completed on May 17, and Ken felt that the applications were generally quite strong and looked promising for the vast majority. An additional 14 presentation and one mini-grant applications were received, a very strong response. Results from the Committee will go to UCOP shortly and will be announced by June 1. Discussion emphasized that the second call was more effective than the first, and Ken noted that the issue was UCOP’s deadline. Ken also noted the documentation for a presentation grant is far less extensive than for a research grant. Debby noted that the documentation requirements distinguishing the two grants seemed somewhat unclear and could benefit from additional language on the website. Further discussion suggested that the entire process could be better aligned with the fiscal year.
6. CPG Committee Report (LO): Discussion of the future of UC librarians and libraries began last year under the leadership of Matt Conner; this produced a substantial document that may be unknown outside of CPG. It addresses technical services and LAUC governance, focusing on job skills that existing and new librarians would need. This year, the committee is examining an executive summary document under Heidie Hutchinson, moving forward with some of the elements from last year’s report, due June 30. It expands on some of the principals in the original report, located on the LAUC wiki and Assembly blog.
7. Chair’s Report (NL): Four presentations were given at the LAUC general assembly at UC San Diego on March 10; the Executive Board meeting was on March 11. Janet Lockwood spoke about new staff and academic personnel; Jessy Bernall is coordinating the campus climate initiative on a system-wide level; the full committee has some outside members from well-known diversity organizations, eg NAACP, working on adapting national models on improving campus climate to the UC system. Dan Greenstein talked about the UC online instruction pilot. Twenty-nine courses have been selected and posted to the pilot site; librarians are encouraged to go there and contact faculty to discuss library support, but libraries were not formally included in the planning process. A letter went out from the statewide academic council to Mark Yudoff to discuss the project, given funding concerns: the funding gap now is substantial. Other issues, including how credits transfer and how assessment will be handled, also remain. Bruce Miller gave a presentation on next-gen technical services; the content of his talk was not controversial, but some felt that his presentation was overly aggressive, particularly on the fact that the time for feedback was over and implementation was underway. Gene Lucas, EVC at UCSB and chair of SLASIAC task force, reported on the interim report; it has now been released. Three phases proposed in the report, expected to generate $52M in savings; the four broad categories are to expand and collectively manage shared library services, support faculty efforts to change scholarly communication, explore new sources of revenue, and improve the existing framework for system-wide planning, consultation and decision making. The full report is available online. A resolution on budget cuts proposed by Irvine was tabled, due to unclear target audience and outcome expectations. Annette noted that in discussion, no consensus emerged over the propriety of the resolution itself, as well as the language. The distinguished step task force was not addressed, due to time limitations. Given that it involves salary and the MOU, it entails collective bargaining. There were also seven break-out discussion groups, all posted to the Assembly blog. The next assembly is scheduled to meet at UCSC, which poses transportation problems; Michael has charged a committee on the future of the LAUC Assembly to explore meeting options, including fixed sites, web conferencing, etc. The Committee on Libraries has been expanded to include Scholarly Communication, added April 1. It is currently working on a survey of grad students to assess how they find and use library resources; Annette added that they might test it this quarter and disseminate in fall. Despite the workload of the Committee, they are most willing to engage in communication with librarians.
8. Vice Chair’s Report (AM): The local R&PD Committee assisted the statewide committee this year on the local submissions; the other major task this year was the website, which will be addressed after the move this summer. The charge for the Future of the LAUC Assemblies committee has not been drafted yet; next year, Annette will be on the planning committee for the next statewide meeting, which will be held at UCSC. Discussion ensued over parking and transport issues.
9. CAPA Chair's Report (GC): Greg noted that they were making good progress on the reviews, and that the process had been rewarding due to the caliber of the work done. The committee was balancing celerity with thoroughness, as always.
10. General Committee Chair’s Report (KPS): The slate of candidates for next year is almost finalized; a number of candidates have expressed interest for some positions, e.g. General Committee Chair, but not for all. Thanks to all who agreed to serve. Nicole added that the statewide elections were approaching soon and that it would be good to coordinate local. The LAUC-sponsored intellectual property webinar is happening next Wednesday at 11 a.m. in the McHenry Instruction room, and the 26th will be the LAUC social at the Parish Pub at 4 p.m.
11. Secretary’s Report (NM): No report.