LAUC-I General Membership Meeting - October 12, 1998 - ML 570
 
Present: Palmer, Kjaer, Horn, Broidy, Gelfand, Lucas, Ariel, Yu, Riggs,
Martin, Kaufman, Yang, Dooley, Sisson, Shahid, Tseng, Murphy, Womack,
Wilson, Munoff, Tanji (notetaker) 
 
Guests: Associate EVC Killackey, Pat Price, Robin Baldauf
 
1. Agenda Review
 
2. Librarian Review Process with special guests: Pat Price (Director of
Academic Personnel) and Associate Executive Vice Chancellor Killackey. 
 
NOTE: This section of the meeting was recorded for members, who could not
attend the meeting. Contact Lorelei (x5216; Ltanji@uci.edu) if you want to
borrow the cassette tape. 
 
AEVC Killackey and Pat Price were welcomed, and then members asked them a
series of questions: 
 
Q: The new UL will have been here less than 60 days during the review
period. How are you (AEVC Killackey) advising the UL on review procedures
or providing guidance? 
 
AEVC: This year, the UL will not be the final authority of this review
process.  There are several Deans and others who will be helping the UL to
be informed about the peer review process. 
 
Q: If Gerry is not the final decision-maker this year....
 
AEVC: Clarification, he will be the final authority in some files
according to the pilot program ("no action" and normal merit increases).
However, files will be post-audited by Academic Personnel (hereafter
called AP). AP will make sure that the files are reviewed and I will read
all the files. 
 
Q: A UL will know more about librarianship and librarian responsibilities,
so this would make the UL a logical final signatory. However with
contested cases, who would make the final decision? And if AP only saw
contested cases, what standard would AP be able measure these cases by? Or
in the situation where all cases were decided by the UL, what would be the
role of AP? 
 
AEVC: What we want to do with the UCI Libraries is not unique. As the
campus gets bigger, we all need to decentralize these personnel decisions.
This should be put in a larger context. For example, for Academic Senate
members, there have been some pilot projects with delegation to the Deans.
This was temporarily halted this year, but we will be going back to this.

Also during this current year, we are going to start developing
procedures to have probably all non-senate files reviewed at the Deans
level. We think it can be done well at this level.
 
The decision made by the decision-maker will stand, but we will review
files. If there are any patterns that show it is not working, then
anything that can be delegated, can be "undelegated".
 
Q: What is the status of the administrative stipends? 
 
AEVC: They have not been funded, and they are still under review. The EVC
is still very new and has not addressed this yet.
 
PP: It should be addressed very soon--in the next week or two.
 
Q: The UCI Libraries staff is in the high ranks (many senior members),
what does this mean in terms of advancement? We all can't be at the top
level, but more people are eligible. What guidance would you share with
the UL? 
 
AEVC: I'm only vaguely familiar with the problem (if it is a problem). I
know we have more librarians at the highest level than any other campus. I
can't comment on the justification of that or not.
 
The way I look at it, as time goes on, more and more professors will be in
the higher ranks.  And that's good, as long as people are active and
functioning. The peer review process allows that to happen--and as long as
it is done appropriately, then it can be justified. 
 
Q: We look at the APM and AP Procedures (out of date for librarians), any
timeline for updating the procedures? What is the role for the library to
help update the procedures? 
 
AEVC: The major role of updating will be the UCI Libraries in consultation
with AP. We would like to see it happen this year. 
 
PP: Anytime there is updating there is consultation with the major
constituents-- LAUC-I, Library Personnel, etc....this will be a team
effort. It is on our priority list too. 
 
AEVC: I would like the Library to make the first move.
 
PP: AP will issue something formally to the UL to get it started.
 
Q: It is increasingly difficult to make comments on people's reviews based
on the information that we are supplied with and it is enormously
time-consuming. For example, samples of people's works should be
submitted. The process can be improved, if there is fuller documentation. 
 
Also as people closest to a person being reviewed are asked to write
letters, this limits the number of available people to serve on ad hoc
committees. What do you think of the role of outside reviewers? 
 
AEVC: I'm not now familiar with procedures for Ad Hoc.
 
PP: The numbers of ad hocs has been only 4 last year, and the number of ad
hoc committees has declined even for faculty. Yes, you do limit the
population who can serve on ad hocs, if you have sought letters of support
from all the obvious people within the library. 
 
PP: On some UC campuses, promotions for faculty senate to step 6 or above
scale automatically necessitate an ad hoc committee. Our Senate waived
that procedure, and the LRC parallels this waiver (LRC can choose not to
request an ad hoc committee).
 
Q: Would you comment on the perceived impact (if any) on open or redacted
letters? 
 
AEVC: Again I can't comment specifically on the context within the
libraries, I haven't served long enough to comment. But based on my
experience with Academic Senate, it hasn't affected the quality of the
academic review. It is harder to write those letters. 
 
Q: There is a distinction between librarian and faculty reviews. Faculty
are able to comment on the quality of work without identifying themselves,
while we usually need to contextualize our comments (e.g. explain that we
served on the same committees in order to establish
authority/credibility). It is a much more personalized process. It is
having a more negative impact in the library. 
 
AEVC: We hear this a great deal, but we have to uphold this. This is
UC-wide policy.
 
PP: It is difficult for the faculty, as well as librarians, to obtain
objective and critical/analytical letters. We have noted this since 1990,
when redacted letters were approved. The smaller the unit, the more
difficult it is. 
 
There are only about 2 or 3 campuses that use a short form without
requiring letters at every move. The "key" is to hold off requesting
letters until you need it for promotion or significant advancement. 
 
Kaufman: I want to caution people that you may be mistaken about the
identity of a person you think has written the redacted letter. Your
guesses are sometimes inaccurate.
 
Q: What happens if a candidate under review finds out that someone, who
they work closely with and who can write a fair statement, has not been
asked to be a reviewer, even though this person was mentioned on the list
they submitted to their review initiator. 
 
 
AEVC: It is up to the discretion of the review initiator to choose who is
contacted for letters. 
 
People under review are asked to list people to write letters. In my
experience, these people tend to be discounted more. Letters from people
not on the list are usually given more credence and weight. 
 
PP: Usually there is a balance of letters from the candidate's list and
letters from outside that list. 
 
Q: With the faculty dossiers, you are looking for a balance of letters. Is
there anybody in the Library that is looking for balance and equity across
files and across departments? 
 
AEVC: Well, a good review should include a review of the review
initiators. 
 
CP: In my experience, LRC has not looked at the balance of letters from a
list and outside of a list. Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes it
depends on a person's position; t wouldn't be appropriate to get a wide
representation of letters if their job is specialized. Letters are usually
obtained from people, who can comment on the nature of the person's work. 
 
Kaufman: We are moving in that direction of seeking a balance of letters.
Gerry and the Ad Team have talked about issues like this and compared
notes about what they do as review initiators. The intent is that the AULs
will communicate this with department heads. 
 
Within the library, there is the assumption that names submitted are
usually contacted. That has been the practice within the Library. The
faculty, I think, have different expectations. They assume that there will
be more outside letters sought. 
 
Q: I've been asked by someone at another institution, if I could be listed
as a possible reviewer. The person being reviewed supplied me with
documentation in case I should be contacted. Should I do the same; should
I be an advocate and supply this information to the people I've listed? 
 
AEVC: Your colleague is perhaps putting an undue burden on you. S/he is
making an assumption that the personnel office will not supply sufficient
documentation to you. 
 
Some responsibility lies with the LRC in the context on whether they have
enough information to make an appropriate decision. 
 
CP: Yes. In the LRC, there is always the option of seeking additional
information, if needed. 
 
Q: Is there is a faculty tradition of submitting a list of names that the
person does not want to be contacted. 
 
AEVC: Yes. But the review initiators should know whom to contact without
you telling them. People should spend time cultivating their department
chair (or review initiator) and let them know which people to contact. 
 
Q: Is it really a different culture?
 
PP: There is a different situation with faculty, you don't need to know
the individual as much as how the body of their work impacts the field. 
 
Q: What do you see as the things that are the same or different between
library and faculty reviews? Is there any information that would help
assist in the evaluation of the files? What's your outside perspective? 
 
AEVC: At this time, I don't have a big enough sample (I've only seen 8 files).
 
PP: The more analytical the files can be, the better. At all levels of
review, we ask--What does it all add up to be? What's the import within
the library and outside? 
 
I believe the quality of the files has increased - you are doing a good job.
 
Q: There is some frustration and vagueness about the criteria for a
distinguished librarian (e.g. Librarian 5). Can you comment on this? 
 
AEVC: I don't know why there isn't a level 6, 7, and 8.
 
There are 2 major bars in the faculty senate: Professor 6 and 8. Professor
6 is an easier one to define since it has somewhat objective criteria. For
example, does this person have an international reputation and impact? 
 
But Professor 8 does indeed get fairly subjective. People try to grasp at
objective criteria. There are unwritten criteria (e.g. elected to Academy
of Science, Nobel Prize). The University defines the overall criteria, but
as we develop procedures, we can put addendum and codicils that will help
individuals--both individuals being reviewed and individuals writing
review letters. 
 
Q: Re the Pilot Project--if we proceeded with full delegation to the UL,
what would be the role of AP? 
 
AEVC: There would have to be some though given re the procedures.  AP will
remain the office of record, all files housed there. The Library Personnel
office would have to play a role. A place for LRC to meet and review files
would have to be found. Appointing ad hoc committees will happen, but who
will do the appointing? Many procedural details need to be thought
through.
 
Q: There is a consideration and proposal to add steps to the librarian
series. Can you comment? 
 
AEVC & PP: AP hasn't formally seen the proposal. We hope that when it
comes out of LAUC system-wide and when it comes out to the campuses for
input, that it will go forward.
 
The UCB Faculty are asking for further steps (8.5 or 9). The desire to
keep careers active is important; there is merit to this proposal.
 
Q: Two issues that LAUC is grappling with: 1) adding steps; 2) if they
added steps, whether Librarian 5 would be a super-step. 
 
PP: I remember when Librarian 4 used to be the top step. We wrote local
procedures so that people who already had achieved this super-step
wouldn't have to do it again. 
 
Munoff: The ULs recommend seeking a different route. The ULs were not
opposed to this proposal, they just felt that this proposal needed to be
approached along a different route [after it was not approved by Library
Council]. 
 
Yang: At the system-wide level, the Professional Governance Committee is
gathering information. We are interviewing faculty to see how they moved
their distinguished series from 5 to 8. We are trying to find successful
models. The system-wide assembly did pass a resolution to go forward with
additional steps. Now they are trying to approach UCOP. They hope to
discuss this further at the Spring Assembly. 
 
Q: How are faculty reviewed? Is it mainly based on primary
responsibilities or additional activities, and shouldn't librarians be
reviewed the same way? 
 
AEVC: Faculty are reviewed primarily on their research and teaching.
 
Q: Librarians might be superior in their primary responsibilities, but
they might not be promoted if they are not successful in other areas. 
 
AEVC: All the areas (research, teaching, university participation) reflect
back on their primary responsibilities. I would assume that somebody who
only did their primary responsibilities would hit a ceiling and not get
advanced. 
 
Kaufman: It might not be fruitful to compare librarians to faculty. All
the job positions state the criteria for advancement.
 
Comment: Especially at higher levels, there are some frustrations at not
being able to reward people, if they are superior in their primary duties
but are not active in other areas. 
 
PP: This is true of faculty too. There are faculty, who are wonderful
teachers, but who are not as active in research as in the past. And this
does affect their career advancement. 
 
Comment: These are professional career choices.
 
Q: What happens when a person is not in management, and doesn't have input
on their managers' review?
 
AEVC: What about...? 
 
PP: They don't have anything like a chair's review.
 
AEVC: Oh. 
 
AEVC: I'd like to emphasize that we are moving in the direction of trying
to improve the review process--to make it more equitable and fair. Our
office is not in any way stepping away from the review process. 
 
3. Approval of minutes.
Broidy moved to approve, Gelfand seconded.
Minutes were approved.
 
4. Special election for Chair-Elect.
 
Kathryn Kjaer announced the nominating committee:
Sally Tseng
April Love
Kathryn Kjaer (chair)
 
She announced the slate:
Yvonne Wilson
 
Kathryn called for any more nominations from the floor--there were no
further nominations. 
 
 
Oct 27th will be the election day - ballots will be sent out shortly.  We
can use the small envelopes from the Friends of the Library for the ballot
(per Christina Woo's email). 
 
5. Professional development procedures.
Angela Yang (Professional Development Committee) & Robin Baldauf (Library
Business Office)
 
Angela listed the names of the LAUC-I Professional Development Committee
members: Tim McAdam, Linda Murphy, Pauline Manaka, Angela Yang. 
 
DUE DATE: Friday, Oct 16th - submit professional development requests.
 
The PDC is meeting with Gerry soon to discuss professional development
funding. 
 
Robin mentioned some new changes and gave some reminders & tips:
-Per diem went from $37 to $46
-Mileage 31.5 cents per mile
-VISA card program replaces American Express program
http://www.abs.uci.edu/depts/acctg/disburse/visasum.html
 
-Airplane ticket passenger receipt ticket (on the back of the ticket)  A
travel itinerary can be proof if it shows a zero balance that you've paid.
For ticketless travel, you need to ask for a receipt. The first time you
check in, the receipt has the price. Or you can submit your credit card
bill to show that you have paid for the ticket. 
 
-Hotel: They needed to see the zero balance to show that you paid it in
full. 
 
-Registration: They want some type of itinerary. The Registration fee
might include meals, so they want to be sure that the conference
registration is listed separately. 
 
-Use the professional development form as a checklist. Take it on your
trip and jot down the costs. 
 
-Reminder: They don't do advances per se, but if you submit a copy of the
itinerary, and credit card receipt of payment--then you can be paid in
advance. 
 
-Suppose the cost of travelling by car costs more than travelling by
air--the lower cost (e.g. the cost of travel by airline) will be approved. 
 
-Costs can be reimbursed using other credit cards (e.g. you don't have to
use just the corporate VISA card), though the Travel Office would like to
move in that direction.
 
-$283 base
 
-For LAUC officers, UCOP covers the costs. Robin has copies of the form
and the contact person. UCOP does the purchasing of tickets so that you
don't need to be reimbursed. 
 
-Recharge issues - we should be able to recharge between campuses.
 
-Kaufman: While UCI is the leader in decentralizing most business office
functions. In terms of travel, we are decentralized the least. There is
unhappiness on campus with the way travel is handled. They are recruiting
for a new head of accounting - so they are looking into improving the
situation. 
 
Q: How should we fill out the form? 
 
Yang: Try to fill it out using your best estimate of costs. The PDC
doesn't know what funding will be given for Tier 1 or Tier 2 yet, but will
have a better idea after their meeting with Gerry Munoff.
 
Tier 1: If you are an officer or giving a presentation; Tier 2: If you are
a member of a committee or in support of a continuing education course. 
 
 
 
Q: CARL Conference should we fill out any conference activities starting
July 1, 1998.
 
Yang: Yes so that our data accurate on what we spend and what we get
reimbursed. 
 
Information from the survey will be shared with the membership and the
committee will give a full report on this. 
 
Yvonne: Are you going to use the 2/3 formula or a set amount?
 
Yang: PDC will be using the 2/3 formula.
PDC is working with Judy Kaufman on the numbers.
 
Q: Can requests be adapted later once the funding is known?
If a person is in the midst of being asked to give a paper, should this
request be submitted? 
 
Answer: Yes for both. There is always room for flexibility.
 
Send any additional questions to the Professional Development Committee
members (Yang, Manaka, McAdam, or Murphy) 
 
5. Announcements.
 
a. Ad Hoc Committee on LAUC-I Handbook.
The LAUC-I Executive Board accepted the ad hoc committee recommendations.
CP distributed a memorandum: 
 
1. The LAUC-I Executive Board will adopt version II of the handbook,
available on the LAUC-I website.
 
2. The LAUC-I Executive Board will be responsible for the intellectual
content of the electronic handbook. The LAUC-I Secretary will supervise a
student who will update the handbook as necessary. 
 
3. The electronic version of the handbook will be regarded as the copy of
record. Members can print out sections and updates to sections as needed.
This will spare the expense of printed revisions. New librarians will be
introduced to the LAUC-I webpage and the handbook. 
 
4. The handbook will reside on the LAUC-I homepage.
 
5. The content of the electronic handbook will parallel content of the
print version. 
 
6. The handbook will be updated as new materials become available. Every
effort will be made to ensure that materials included are the most recent
and accurate. 
 
7. The handbook will be reviewed periodically and additional materials
will be added. 
 
The LAUC-I Executive Board would like to thank the Ad Hoc Committee on the
LAUC-I Handbook for their work. Having fulfilled its charge, the Ad Hoc
Committee is discharged.
 
Suggestion from membership: Change the wording in #7 from "periodically"
to "annually" = "The handbook will be reviewed annually.." 
 
Kaufman: Confirmed that the LAUC-I webpage helped to explain LAUC and
professional development funding to a recent interview candidate. 
 
 
b. CP will be attending the LAUC Executive Board meeting in Oakland Oct
23rd. CP will report on this at the next general membership mtg. 
 
c. General guidelines for LAUC-I laptop - handout distributed and also
will be posted on the LAUCI website: 
 
The LAUC-I Executive Board endorsed general guidelines for the use of the
LAUC-I laptop. 
 
1. Laptop will be reserved for use by LAUC-I members only.
 
2. LAUC-I members can make reservations for the laptop in advance.
 
3. The LAUC-I laptop is available for checkout M-F between 8-5.
 
4. First priority will be given to reservations involving a professional
development activity.
 
5. If the laptop has not been reserved within 48 hours for a professional
development activity, LAUC-I members can reserve and use the laptop for
activities which may not be connected to professional development. 
 
6. If a need arises, we will establish more specific guidelines for the
use of the LAUC-I laptop.
 
As currently configured, the laptop may not include all the applications
we expect from library equipment so members are urged to test the
equipment in advance to determine if it will meet their needs.

Suggestions from the membership:
 
-Recommend a booking/reservation schedule on the web.
-Guidelines for priority use of laptops are needed.
-Perhaps develop an ad hoc committee to review the guidelines.
-Next equipment request might address the need for more laptops; MRC & ILC
need to address needs and guidelines uniformly. Requests should be
submitted in call for equipment. 
-Instructional services will be making a request for equipment.
-University is self-insured.
 
7. Broidy moved to adjourn the meeting; Wilson seconded.
Meeting adjourned 3:00pm