LAUC-I General Membership Meeting
Monday, July 12, 1999, 1-3 pm, Science Library 104
 
The only agenda item for the July 12th meeting will be a continued
discussion of the proposal to delegate all librarian review action
decisions to the University Librarian.  

In order to make the meeting on the 12th productive, please review the
notes from the Brown Bag meeting on June 22 (forwarded after this
message) and the web site that Bill Landis created.

  http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~blandis/lauc-i/ul_delegation.html

This web site summarizes and categorizes the issues discussed and
identified at the three meetings we have had where this issue was
addressed. If members have other issues, not already included in the web
site, we will add them to the discussion either at the meeting on the
12th or by sending them to me or the LAUC-I alias prior to the 12th. I
want to avoid debating issues that have already been identified.  

As I reviewed Bill's web site, it became clear to me that there are two
issues that need clarification so that LAUC-I members  can make an
informed and rational decision about this proposal.  First of all, I think
we need to understand and keep in mind, the reason for this proposal.
According to our meeting with AEVC Killackey in October, campus
administration is delegating review decisions for ALL non-senate academic
personnel back to the units.  In other words, the library is not being
treated in a unique manner.  I think it would be useful for the membership
to know what other departments, units, and/or personnel classifications
are affected by this adminstrative decision.

The other sticking point is that of grievance procedures for reviews.  My
understanding is that the current grievance procedures will not be
affected by the delegation of review authority to the University
Librarian.  I have contacted AEVC Killackey and Pat Price in Academic
Personnel asking for clarification of both these issues.  Unfortunately,
AEVC Killackey is out of the country until the 19th, but Pat said she
would find answers for me before the 12th so I will be able to share that
information at the membership meeting.

As far as running the meeting, I want to procede as we did at the end of
the brown bag.  First I will share any information I have from Academic
Personnel.  Then, we will ask people to vote on each review action
proposed for delegation.  That way we can eliminate uncontroversial
actions from discussion and identify those issues that members are
concerned about delegating.  If there are points not already identified
concerning the more controversial actions, we will record them. We will
allow a short discussion period for each controversial action, then we
will ask for a final vote on each proposed action.  I will then use that
information to formulate the LAUC-I final response to EVC Lillyman.  

My plan and timeline for the LAUC-I response is to send a draft to the
membership ASAP after the meeting on the 12th asking for feedback with a
short turn around time (by 5 pm on the 7/14).  I will send out the final
response to the membership for review on the 15th indicating that silence
implies acceptance.  The final LAUC-I response will go to Academic
Personnel on July 16.

Thanks for your input and support.

Cathy Palmer, Chair, LAUC-I