LAUC-Santa Cruz General Membership Meeting Minutes
May 22, 2008
Present: Kerry Scott (Chair), Frank Gravier (Vice Chair), Sue Perry (CAPA Chair), Christy Hightower (Secretary), Danielle Kane (General Committee Chair), and members: Ginny Steel, Robin Dale, Kate McGirr, Cynthia Jahns, Paul Machlis, Beth Remak-Honnef, Nicole Lawson, Christine Bunting, Cheryl Gomez, Greg Careaga, Debbie Murphy, Ann Hubble, Lucia Orlando, Sarah Troy, Christy Caldwell, Lai-Ying Hsiung, Annette Marines, Ken Lyons, Karen Mokrzycki.
1. Presentation and discussion of 2006-2007 CAPA Report. (see report linked on this page: http://internal.library.ucsc.edu/comm/lauc/capa/index2.html).
As 2006-2007 CAPA Chair, Gravier thanked the CAPA members that year (Perry, Scott, Lyons) and remarked on the high quality of the librarians at UCSC. He noted that review packets were generally well organized but that there was a tendency towards excessive documentation in the files, which CAPA surmised was due to a lack of clarity surrounding expectations and goals for librarians. Gravier then summarized the report, noting that the delay in the review calendar noted in previous years has now reached the crisis stage and challenged the membership to consider how this should be addressed. Current CAPA chair Perry noted that there have been significant delays this year as well, with five of eight files not having reached CAPA yet as of the date of this meeting (late May).
University Librarian Steel remarked that we have quite an elaborate review process with letters being requested from a lot of people. The required letters from secondary supervisors adds another set of deadlines. Steel talked to LAUC Chair Scott shortly before this LAUC meeting to request a LAUC task force to look into the role of secondary supervisors. Do we need them? Should review initiators take responsibility for all areas of a librarian's work? We need to be consistent across libraries. If we continue to have secondary supervisors, what is the language we use to describe them? For instance, are they really supervisors? Regarding the calendar Steel wondered if we have an overly elaborate structure that is not understood by everyone. She asked if we could streamline the structure, perhaps by looking at the Academic Personnel Manual (APM). Steel mentioned that the review she submits to her supervisor is very few pages and that the response she gets back from her review is about one paragraph long. Steel wondered if a happy medium in length and complexity could be achieved.
There followed a general discussion by the members present. It was remarked that the secondary supervisor issue was only part of the problem. There have also been a lot of requests recently for accelerations because the workload of librarians has increased as the number of librarians overall has decreased, and people want compensation for that extra workload. Another remarked that fear and uncertainty about expectations generates more documentation in the files and the feeling that you need to do lots in all categories because you don't want to miss what is crucial to do but you are unsure what is crucial or enough. Four people spoke in favor of a process of librarian's writing short goals every year and discussing them with their review initiators as a way to improve communication between management and librarians and as a way to provide more focus. It was noted that the librarian's written statement of job responsibilities is now more emphasized in the librarian's new union contract. There was a suggestion to end the practice of writing "biobibs" and a suggestion for "in service" days for librarians, modeled on those for teachers, that could be days in December when librarians could be relieved of reference and other duties in order to write their reviews. It was also remarked that the changes and clarification of procedures and timetables for "no action" reviews still needs attention [Note: that was a recommendation from the 2005 CAPA report that is expected to be addressed in this summer's strategic planning process per the 2006-2007 CAPA report.]
Scott asked Steel if a LAUC member could be invited to be part of the upcoming strategic planning process in order to represent the needs and concerns of the LAUC membership as a whole. Steel agreed to extend that invitation. ACTIONS: Through its participation in the library's imminent strategic planning process (summer '08) LAUC will provide guidance and recommendations to library management about expectations for review initiators and about the role of secondary supervisors.
2. Presentation and discussion of Recruitment and Retention Committee Report - linked to from http://internal.library.ucsc.edu/comm/lauc/
Scott thanked the committee (chair Kane, members Jahns and Marines) for their extensive and detailed work.
First item of discussion was the proposal to charge a committee to come up with a process for counter offers. McGirr commented that a process for counter offers must match the faculty process, which is up for review shortly and will probably be changing. There are also local campus requirements for review packets that will have to be met. Lyons mentioned that even though the issue of counter offers was shelved toward the end of the winter union bargaining sessions, it does in fact remain negotiable when we resume talks on salary/economic issues following passage of the state budget this fall. Careaga asked if LAUC could propose a model and ask McGirr to inform us as to practices at other campuses. ACTION: CAPA is charged to come up with a process for counter offers.
Next was the discussion of whether the membership would like UL Steel to pursue librarian membership on the Campus Wellfare Committee, and whether Steel should actively pursue with campus librarian participation in the Mortgage Origination Program (MOP). After some discussion both recommendations were supported by the membership. ACTION: Scott to draft a letter to Steel stating the members resolution that she take these issues up with campus. [Done. Link to letter is forthcoming]
Next, the other recommendations in the report as a group were endorsed by the membership. Finally, in a formal vote, the following recommendation to change the bylaws to add this responsibility to the duties of the LAUC Chair was approved:
"The Chair Person will be responsible for tracking, updating, and communicating progress on past SC-LAUC-sponsored committee work. This responsibility includes communicating updates to the membership, following up with Administration on progress made with past recommendations, and, if necessary, charging new committees to follow-up on and update past committee work/recommendations."
3. Discussion of continuing difficulties in recruiting people to run for LAUC office. Scott thanked those individuals who have put their names on the ballot this year, but said that recruiting for LAUC service seems to be a problem every year. Steel remarked that she views LAUC service as extremely important, especially for those who are more senior in rank. Steel said that she does look for LAUC service in review packets and that if she does not see LAUC service she thinks that may indicate a withdrawal from local issues which she would find disturbing. Another member mentioned that it would be helpful if there were LAUC meetings with specific topics for general discussion throughout the year.
Minutes by Hightower