LAUC-I General Membership Meeting 
                20 October, 1997  
                1-3pm in ML 570

    LAUC-I General Membership Meeting * 20 Oct 97  * 1-3pm in ML 570
 
Present: Clark, Dooley, Eichhorn, Ford, Gottneid, Kaufman, Kjaer, Kugler,
Leung, Lessick, McAdam, Palmer, Paquette, Shahid, Sisson, Tseng, Womack,
Woo, Yang, Yu (20)
 
The agenda had been emailed on 17 Oct 97 and is Appendix A. at the end of
these minutes.
 
Agenda Review (K. Kjaer)
 
        We have a full agenda and want to devote 45 minutes to agenda item
#7 (Discussion of the librarian review process).  If we run short on time,
K. Kjaer will email information on agenda items #4-5 (Report on 10/15 LAUC
statewide Exec. Bd.  mtg. and Brief reports on 10/9 Chancellor's Luncheon
with Academic Senate Exec. Bd. and 10/14 Academic Senate Exec. Bd. mtg.)
 
1. Approval of the minutes of the 8/11 and 9/8 General Membership meetings
(minutes emailed on 8/18 and 10/15) - tabled for lack of a quorum (15).
 
2. Update on current librarian searches:
 
   A.  Romance & German Lit. Libn - 3 candidates will be invited for
       interviews: Chris McConnell on 11/10-11, Dawn Anderson on 11/12-13,
       and Barbara Bopp on 11/17-18 (J. Kaufman).
   B.  Serials Cataloger - Application deadline is 10/31; so far, 5
       applications have been received.  Interviews will begin as soon as
       possible (L. Shadhid).
 C.  Head, Collection Development - Job posting is being finalized;  
       range is Assoc. IV to Libn. III (J. Dooley).
   D.  Manuscripts Libn - Committee has composed a long and short ad;
       short ad has been sent to SAA/Society of American Archivists.
       Deadline for first consideration is end of December.  Range is
       Assoc. Libn (C. Kugler).
   E.  Temporary Part Time SL R&I - Interviews for 6 candidates are set
       for the week of 10/27 (J. Gelfand email).
   F.  Temporary Part Time Weekend R&I - Application deadline is today; 15
       applications received so far.  Interviews will be the weeks of
       10/27 and 11/3; interviews will last 2.5 hrs. and will not include
       a meeting with the dept. as a whole.  Candidates will meet with the
       committee, J. Kaufman, and dept. head (A. Yang).
 3. Update on University Librarian Search (Kjaer, Dooley)
 
The Search Committee has reviewed a substantial pool of applicants,
solicited references on several promising individuals, and identified a
group of "semifinalists."  Within the coming weeks, after a interviewing
the individuals in this group, the Search Committee hopes to recommend a
number of "finalists" to the Executive Vice Chancellor for extensive
on-campus interviews.
 
The Search Committee's official duties will be completed at this point.
The on-campus interviews will be planned and facilitated by the EVC and
his staff. We have been assured that each candidate will give an open
forum presentation and will meet with a wide variety of groups and
individuals within the Library and the campus.  All feedback regarding the
candidate interviews will go directly to the EVC.  The Search Committee
will have an opportunity to send post-interview evaluations to the EVC
also.
 
It is unlikely that finalists for on-campus interviews will be here
before Winter Quarter '98.  J. Dooley, K. Kjaer, and L. Harris welcome
library input at any time--preferably sooner rather than later--especially
on topics for questions for the "semi-finalists."  Search Committee
interviews of the "semi-finalists" will be confidential (as well as their
names). 
 
Members requested resumes/vitae of the finalists be distributed within the
Library.  It will be up to the EVC's office to distribute that
information.
 
[1] - Approval of minutes, now that we have a quorum:  Both the August and
September meeting minutes were approved with separate voice votes.
 
6. Committee charges for 1997/98 academic year (distributed via email on
10/17; shown as Appendix B)
 
Archives Committee (ad hoc) - K. Kjaer has received positive responses
from appointees J. Dooley, J. Horn, and E. MacDonald.
 
K. Kjaer distributed paper copies listing the committee charges.
 
Discussion of the charges to the first committee, Academic Librarianship,
became protracted.  Issues raised included the fact that not all LAUC-I
members have a current copy of the LAUC-I handbook, the committee members'
role (if any) in authoritatively answering questions about the review
process and necessary documentation, etc.  Charge 4 was amended (see CAPS)
to read, "Examine, analyze, and report on the policies and procedures
governing the formation and activities of Librarian search committees IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE AUL FOR PERSONNEL.  REPORT AND make recommendationS,
IF NEEDED, to the LAUC-I Executive Board by April 30, 1998.
 
What is the role of LAUC vis a vis the University?  According to the APM,
LAUC is an official unit that serves in an advisory capacity.

7.  Discussion of the librarian review process
 
Discussion of agenda topic #6 folded into a discussion of topic #7, which
we wanted to begin at 2:15pm.  K. Kjaer provided some background,
including a recap of S. Leung's 10/10/97 memo to all LAUC-I members about
the "Academic Review Process."  The memo and the issues it addressed arose
from a meeting J. Kaufman had convened in Sept. about this year's
periodic review--specifically about the criteria, procedures, consistency,
and simplifying the process.
 
Our current review "procedures" appear to be a combination of many
different interpretations PLUS well- and ill-remembered historical
practices.  There is considerable misunderstanding and convusion, plus a
lack of clarity in interpretation.  Many issues need to be addressed.
LAUC-I members who had worked at other UCs recalled significant
differences between LAUC-I's procedures and the procedures at UCLA,
Riverside, and San Diego.
 
We decided to list (on large sheets) our PROCEDURAL concerns and our
PHILOSOPHICAL concerns.  On some issues, there is clearly overlap between
the procedural and the philosophical.
 
Procedural:
  A - How do UC campus procedures differ from each other?  What
      age/seniority/recruitment differences are there?
  B - When and how do we use "no action"?  What about use of "deferral"?
  C - What papers, in addition to the APM, constitute the corpus of review
      documents?  Which have precedence over the others?  What is the role
      of "past practice"?
  D - Can we agree on a common interpretation of our documents?
  E - Can we let the reviewee know where her/his file is at any point in
      the review sequence?  Specifically, can we let the reviewee know if
      her/his file is on time or late, and what impact this has on her/his
      paycheck?
  F - We are the only campus to use a short form.  Should we evaluate the
      form and the process?  What are the implications of its use?
  G - How are accelerations treated/given at other UCs?
  H - How can we help new librarians with our review process?  Should we
      have a mentoring program that specifically coaches the new
      librarian?
  I - What are our norms for documentation?
  J - We need to investigate the achievement level between steps, e.g.,
      the wording describing the movement from Libn III to IV and from IV
      to V.
  K - To what extent do we recognize/look to the "faculty model" as the
      original basis for our review structure and process?
  L - The APM does not require a "factual resume" (by any name), but all
      campuses have something like one.  UCSC also has a second, personal
      evaluation in its package from the reviewee.
  M - How does a revision of a librarian's positin description fit into
       the review procedure?
  N - When is a full-career review required?
  O - At the other UCs how is the LRC constituted?  For how long do
      members serve?
 
Philosophical:
  A - Why are there so many Libn Vs at UCI?  What variations are there
      among campuses and review initiators in the interpretation of the
      APM and the position paper on advancement to Libn V?
  B - What is the relationship between "past practice" to written
      practice, the APM, position papers, etc.?
  C - Once all of the documentation we need is available (e.g., on the
      WWW), we still must agree on interpretation
  D - UCI considers the step from Libn III to IV a "normal" step; at other
      UCs it is considered a "major" step.
  E - What is the balance between activities/performance in criteria I
      versus in II-IV?
  F - Are there norms for how evaluative the factual resume is?
  G - How do other UC campuses use a "self evaluation"?
  H - What is the role of the LRC?
 
The meeting was adjourned at 3:02pm.