LAUC-I General Membership Meeting December 7, 1998 SL 104 Present: Palmer, Horn, Yang, Lessick, Manaka, Womack, Gottneid, Landis, Tseng, Eichhorn, Bube, Wilson, Kaufman, Gelfand, Yu, Kjaer, Riggs, Tanji AGENDA 1. Agenda Review 2. Report from the LAUC-I Executive Board A. Chair Cathy Palmer has distributed charges to the LAUC-I Standing Committees and Ad Hoc Committee. The committee members names and the full-text of their charges are posted on the LAUC-I website: http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~lauciweb/9899/roster98.htm#stand a. Ad Hoc Archives Committee. Their charge has been extended. b. Cultural Diversity Committee. Their charge is to help tabulate information needed by the systemwide committee. c. Program Committee. Their charge is to plan a program; we recommended that LEA administer any charitable-giving activity. The Program Committee will develop a proposal for a Spring program and work with the Professional Development Committee to develop forums for exchanging information on professional development activity reports (brown bags); d. Professional Development Committee. Their charge is the same as past years. e. Academic Librarianship Committee. Their charge is to resolve and bring closure on the discussion of the document, "Criteria for Library Personnel Action," and schedule a meeting w/ Gerry Munoff regarding his thoughts on the personnel review process. B. Fall Assembly - Cathy Palmer (Chair), Yvonne Wilson (Vice-Chair), Ellen Broidy (Member-at-Large) will be the official LAUC-I representatives 3. LAUC-I Response to Proposed Salary Ranges for AUL Series Salaries LAUC-I needs to respond to a proposal to increase the salary ranges for AULs; the response needs to be sent to AEVC Herbert Killackey via Pat Price. Cathy Palmer distributed a LAUC-I response that she drafted based on the LAUC-I comments that she received. -Administrative stipends have been used as a stop-gap measure, which avoids the need for salary increases. Most other campuses funded stipends out of the library; at UCI the issue was lost between the transition between AEVC Golub and AEVC Killackey. The issue was forwarded to the new University Librarian, Gerry Munoff. -Kaufman (AUL Personnel) pointed out that at almost all the other campuses, the AULs are in the MSP series as a way of giving them higher salaries. -A suggestion was made to add a separate paragraph that we understand that using the MSP series is being used as a way of offering higher salaries to library administrators at other UC campuses. -Someone else noted that academic departments handle this situation in a slightly different way. Departments hire people for positions, then create the series. They often use departmental funds to offer people off-set salary ranges, then they develop a series model. -After some discussion, members supported the idea of trying to maintain the AULs within the Librarian series with the recommendation that the Librarian series be equal to and competitive to MSP salary levels. -Clarification: The proposal increases the salary range, but doesn't automatically promote people and doesn't automatically give them a salary increase per se. ACTION: Cathy will draft a memo due to Pat Price on Wednesday and will send it out to the general LAUC-I membership. 4. LAUC Professional Governance Committee Report for Fall Assembly (Angela Yang). -The CPG report is on the web. http://library.ucr.edu/lauc/cpgreport -Angela summarized the report. The CPG would like to see this report adopted entirely or in part. -LAUC-I agreed that the report was clearly organized, and is an exemplary report. Given this information, LAUC-I membership proceeded to discuss possible "next steps." -Given the proposal for expanding the AUL salary range, it was noted that this is a good time for discussing the expanded range for all librarians. Increased salary ranges would help us be competitive in terms of recruitments and retention. -Members thought that it would be extremely important for a resolution to come out of Fall Assembly that forwarded this report to the Office of the President and recommended additional steps to the Librarian series -A delegation of librarians to the UC Office of the President was considered more effective than simply sending the report. A packet of information might not achieve enough; we need to lobby and talk to UCOP in-person. -It was noted that in past delegations, there was always someone from LAUC Executive Board (current President and Vice-President) or other people were appointed to do the lobbying. Some negative responses were received in the past. Question: Did they talk to the right people? Did they present the right information? -Regarding the composition of a delegation, another person suggested that the President, Vice-President, Chair of the Professional Governance Committee and perhaps one other person could be the lobbyists; perhaps other people should clarify the relationship. -LAUC does not need to develop the criteria for these additional steps right now, it seems more important to get this recommendation to UCOP. If we can capture the attention of UCOP and get them working with us, the details of the criteria can be developed later. -It was noted that the report is organized in terms of criteria - it supports APM. LAUC needs to be prepared to keep pressing this forward; a suggestion of a joint committee would be helpful to get the issue resolved. -It was suggested that LAUC aggressively present data about the profession. And at the UCI level, there is a responsibility to see how well we all support the report. We should begin at home to push this through LAUC. In agreement, Angela Yang referred to the bottom of page 1 in the CPG report, which refers to efforts at systemwide and local level (e.g. get more support from campus academic senate members). -Professional Governance Committee still has additional work to do regarding the criteria and salary structure. Perhaps there should be a division of labor - some people to lobby and other people to work on collecting more data to present. -Members requested additional clarification on LAUC and the relationship with the union vis-à-vis the salary structure. Someone stated that LAUC does not discuss salary and the union does. LAUC is concerned with the salary ranges and steps, rather than the actual dollar amounts. New changes in the APM or series come out of UCOP, then the union responds to it. -Attendees at the Fall Assembly will discuss whether this report will be adopted (binding) or filed (accepted but not binding). -It was suggested that we approve the report and leave it to the Executive Board to come up with next steps -Another person mentioned the likelihood of some other UC campus developing a resolution that the Board can look at and tweak. LAUC-I RESOLUTION: Based on the issues and the supporting evidence in the CPG report (dated 12/11/98), we move that a delegation representing LAUC initiate discussions with UCOP regarding restructuring the librarian series to address the inadequacies identified in the report. Consensus - Cathy Palmer moved that Yvonne present this resolution to LAUC Executive Board on Thursday. Bill Landis seconded. This resolution was passed unanimously. 5. Professional Development Committee Report (Pauline Manaka) The PDC (Tim McAdam, Linda Murphy, Angela Yang, Pauline Manaka) met w/ Gerry Munoff. Judy Kaufman (AUL Personnel) attended this meeting too. What we get for base is mandated by MOU; but the Tier amount is a separate pot of money. The PDC recommended that Tier 1 be funded at a higher amount - proposing Tier 1: $825; Tier 2: $550 One of the scenarios was to get full funding. The PDC hoped there will be funding for every single activity. So far there are 42 requests for Tier 1 funding; 26 requests for Tier 2 funding; 11 non-unit $283 - base funding Information was presented to Gerry to inform him about funding in the past. -Yang had surveyed funding at other UC campuses. -Linda polled and got conference registration fees for all major library organizations - & average airfare, hotel, etc. -Pauline compiled information from an email survey of the membership. The budget has not been totally finalized; Gerry indicated that the total allocation would not be less than last year's allocation and that he hoped that the figures would be available by the holidays. The Professional Development Committee is ready to submit receipts for base funding. The goal of ascertaining whether LAUC-I members will receive professional development funding or not before ALA Midwinter Conference is desirable, but not always possible. Usually our budget is not determined until January. For example, Gerry offered to release the $30,000 (total amount allocated from last year) at this point so that people could get reimbursed for Midwinter and other completed activities in fiscal year 98/99, but if he gives more money later the bookkeeping will be complicated. The Professional Development Committee recommended waiting a short time until the professional development funds are fully determined. In the future, it would help if LAUC-I provided information as part of the budget planning. Administrative travel - The criteria for administrative travel is not clear, perhaps some information about this might be helpful to share at the February meeting. Criteria issues re base funding: People use the base funding quite liberally. Perhaps we can discus s at a general membership meeting the distribution and the way people have choices on how to use funds (e.g. not necessarily on travel). February LAUC-I meeting - we would like Gerry to share his philosophy and goals of professional development and talk of good use of resources; look at professional development activities (conferences, workshops, books, software and look at other campuses). Someone queried whether we are gathering information about members who are not requesting money. Is it because they don't fall into the Tiers criteria or are there other reasons? Perhaps our criteria for use of professional development funds excludes people - a survey from other campuses has shown that they have more flexibility in the use of their funds. However, someone else noted that the base amount can be used flexibly. Another person noted that there is a lack of professional development funds that helps develop cross- departmental research projects. We could be doing things at a higher level but no one in library is looking at these areas - maybe a new committee? Perhaps we should consider more creative ways of using such small amounts of money to benefit more people. Is professional development just travel? We need to explore this issue further. Another person suggested using funds to pay for association membership fees. Another person suggested that the Professional Development and Program Committee could co-sponsor brown-bag meetings, where grant recipients could present reports on their completed projects. Cathy moved to adjourn the meeting. Carol Womack seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned 3:05pm