LAUC-I General Membership Meeting Monday, February 8, 1999, 1-3pm Science Library 104 AGENDA Present: Cathy Palmer, Judy Horn, Colby Riggs, Lydia Shahid, Carol Womack, Collette Ford, Kay Collins, Judy Bube, Sara Eichhorn, Eric MacDonald, Julia Gelfand, Bill Landis, Ellen Broidy, Yvonne Wilson, Tim McAdam, Diane Bisom, Angela Yang, Gerry Munoff, Lorelei Tanji, Steve MacLeod, Abraham Yu, Judy Horn, Colby Riggs Refreshments: Lydia Shahid 1. Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes from the last General Membership Meeting. Ellen moved to approve the minutes, Collette seconded. Minutes approved. 3. Discussion of Professional Development with University Librarian Gerry Munoff As the new UCI University Librarian, this is the first time Gerry has had a chance to discuss professional development with the LAUC-I membership. Here are some notes from this informal discussion (Q=question; C=Comment): GM: I've been learning about how you do things. The LAUC-I Professional Development Committee provided background information and some questionnaire feedback, which were very useful. This year the budget for professional development has been augmented; $4,500 was added to last year's allocation. I'm very supportive of professional development. In the past, I've worked to increase funding in that area. You may take the increase as an indication of the direction I'd like to go. At the same time, there is basically one pot of money - any increase is at the cost of decreasing another area of funding. I'd like everyone to be better informed about budget issues and the areas of priorities and tradeoffs. The money for professional development will depend on the budget situation for any given time period. Let's start discussing some of the issues on your mind. I'll share with you my thoughts now, but I'm open to what we want to do in the future, and will be flexible about new ideas. Q: In terms of the role of professional development, how do you see professional development fitting in. Is it to give the institution visibility (leaders in the profession)? Another goal might be to enrich one's job (e.g. enhance job activities for one's current position)? What is your view about how this activity comes back into the library? GM: I think that our objectives have to be based in the interests of the individual librarians, but if we do things in the right way they feed off of each other. I wouldn't want to fund something just for the reason of having someone be a leader in an area. There should be a synergy of interests and issues. We're not just doing this to make us feel good. It should enhance reputations and also help the library or the profession. Start from a base assumption reflected in the review guidelines - why are we even evaluating these rather than primary activities? We need to examine what sorts of training or professional development activities will allow librarians to become fully developed professionals operating in a variety of arenas. Sometimes technical in-house training will be appropriate, and at other times, professional development will help a librarian perform a job and make contributions to the university and to scholarship. We need some guidelines on what's to be done and how it is to be done. I hope we can have some flexibility. Q: One of the things discussed a lot is UC-wide funding for research, where people apply for grants. Many people apply for research in an academic area that might not reflect on their job at all, but it gets funding because it is academically oriented and the project would further something in their area. It might not be related to the specific campus. What are your thoughts about release time, etc.? GM: Somewhere in between disallowing it and giving it lesser priority. If I were looking at projects and the projects were related to their areas, I would give it a higher priority. To some extent, a case might be made about how it benefits the individual, and it is just a question of priority given the limitations on funding. For overall evaluation of criteria, if this doesn't fit into the slot for the evaluation of this librarian, can we justify the funding? But I wouldn't say that this is a determining factor, it would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Q: Most of us are members of professional organizations partly because we enjoy it and value the benefits we get out of it, but also because it is part of review criteria. I'd like to hear how much you value criteria 2? GM: There are qualitative vs. quantitative aspects that need to be looked at. It should not be considered something to be checked off at review time. We should think broadly about how each of us develops as librarians, our career plans, and how this fits into the unit. For some people, qualitative participation takes the form of conference attendance, or research, etc. Let's be flexible enough for these cases to be made. I'd like to be flexible enough to make the case that a particular activity fits into a person's overall development and is related to their overall evaluation. Q: We're all very appreciative of the added funds this year. I have questions about the money transfer for professional development funds, is the process designed to accommodate the Business Office or to accommodate librarian needs? If someone is awarded a Tier 1, Tier 2, and base - can they get all of it? Is it for one event or multiple events? What about membership fees? Access to literature & publications? Does it have to be travel? And single events? GM: It doesn't always have to be for travel. Membership dues are a little tricky. There is a question in mind on the basic commitment to a profession and individual responsibility. My understanding was it wasn't simply an accounting function, but the criteria for awarding of funds. C: People have multiple functions and activities. If you go to a Midwinter meeting, and don't use it all, you forfeit some of the money. GM: My understanding is that people submit their preferences for the allocation of funds so that they don't end up with one pot of money unless they prefer it that way. T. McAdam (Chair, LAUC-I Professional Development Committee): Tier 1 & Tier 2 money is for an activity. We funded one tier activity for each individual. Base money can be used independently or combined with your tier activities. The base amount ($795.00) cannot be split among several activities. Allocation is more a LAUC-I matter, not an accounting matter. C: The money was given and guidelines were developed with Library Administration. Does Gerry have strong feelings about the guidelines? GM: I would approach it more on general goals and philosophy and let LAUC-I determine guidelines. J. Kaufman (AUL Personnel & Administrative Services): This system was devised by LAUC-I and recommended by Joanne Euster. Joanne directed that funds should not be divided up equally, but should be based on active levels of participation. That's the system that we are operating under right now. LAUC-I voted on this and Joanne approved it. GM: How well is what's currently in place working? I like the differentiation of funding for different levels of activities. What about other types of things (e.g. non-travel)? TM: The base amount is only used for conferences and meetings. But perhaps the use of the base needs to be discussed further. This would necessitate a change of guidelines. C: We do have to remember that the MOU is specific that this is competitive money. Those things are what you are funding for, not a pot of money for individuals. We need to adhere to the basic philosophy of the MOU Q: I thought that the base could be used for any activity, e.g. continuing education that does not involve travel. Question: Can we use it for small expenses for research? TM: It hasn't come up. $10,200 from the MOU doesn't even cover all the librarians' activities. JK: The MOU says that any additional funds need to be handled with the same guidelines as the $10,200. Some of the other UC campuses just divide up the money equally among their members. GM: Quoting from MOU: "The University shall provide funding and opportunities for research and other professional development activities. Other professional development activities include creative activities, professional meetings, conferences, seminars, and workshops. Such funding and opportunities shall be allocated and distributed on a competitive basis at the campus level in accordance with the established procedures. The mix of funding between research and other professional development activities may fluctuate from year to year according to individual campus needs." It doesn't say anything about how it is allocated. JK: There is some wording about "competitive", GM: Quoting from MOU: "Such funding and opportunities shall be allocated and distributed on a competitive basis�." Q: We don't distribute the base in any sort of competitive way. Does this imply we should? JK: Yes, but most campuses do not distribute it competitively. GM: A key thing for me is to have some flexibility. LAUC-I could give some preference to some activities over another. It would be good for the procedures to maintain the flexibility of not just attending a conference. Q: I have questions re the relationship between administrative vs. professional development funding. Many cases could be made that a person needs to participate in an activity that directly relates to their primary job responsibility. GM: It would just depend on the nature of the activity. There is still some discretion about attending events related to one's job description. There is still a selection and evaluation about cost benefits and what is most beneficial to the library. And of course there are separate mini-pots, but they are part of the same large pot of funds. So if there were more administrative funding, it would decrease professional development funding. At the broadest level, it doesn't matter. At a case-by-case level, it does matter. We want to have them coordinated. Ultimately it comes out of the same budget. Q: Administrative funding has always been a big mystery to me? What can we get administrative funding for? Is it not unreasonable to bring back the information it and share it? GM: Is there already a mechanism for this last point? C: Both the Program Committee and Professional Development Committee sponsor brown bags to share information. These meetings tend to be informal and provide a forum for sharing what has been learned at various professional meetings. And also some people have written articles about meetings for Library Items; Julia is really good about sending reports in about these activities. GM: That's good. If there is some communication such as a written report, then this helps in the review; it gives some substance and reminds individuals about the significance of the activity. Q: It has been my understanding that for administrative funding, you need AUL approval. Often there isn't a call, rather you are approached and asked to participate. Alternatively, there might be several people expressing an interest in participating via administrative funding, but sharing of the discussion about who is selected to participate doesn't take place. Do you think administrative travel should go through the ranks of administration? The form is different. The AULs need a wide picture of the staff in order to distribute activities appropriately. GM: May of these are ex officio assignments, i.e. the nature of your position dictates participation. Another way to tie these together (I say this without knowing what occurs presently), the discussion of goals and professional development for the year are related to the expression of interest in various opportunities. Some cases are reactionary; a conference comes up unexpectedly. There will always be that aspect of it. But we could do more thinking and planning ahead of time; create a training development plan. It would help shape the thinking about this. Q: As one goes through the ranks, as one becomes more senior, is it important that people demonstrate that? Or does additional responsibilities take away time to participate in these activities? GM: There has to be a balance there. This depends on the opportunities that present themselves and a necessary and unavoidable element of fuzziness. Some dialogue or discussion should occur on whether certain career opportunities and activities are the direction to go. I'd like to move in the direction of yearly plans, would you be supportive of that? Q: Was the administrative travel pot the same or increased? GM: Same amount - I don't remember changing this allocation. C: One of the things that I've experienced at other institutions is having a local group do in-house research projects. We've tried to do some things with limited amounts of money, but there might be a better way of utilizing the base money or supplementary money; collegial research seems to be missing. GM: Tim you mentioned reviewing the criteria for awarding the base amount next year. Perhaps this is something the committee could consider? C: Perhaps we could have a brown bag every 6 months or so to figure out what in-house research projects are needed to best benefit the UCI Libraries. GM: We will see what LAUC-I comes up, and we will continue our discussion. Money will always be a factor. Professional development is something we want to support reasonably. The level of support is not too bad. As we work to do even better, we need to keep in mind that the budget allocation is reasonable. My conclusion is that we still want to do better. C: We also want to keep in mind that many of us are burdened by an association that meets twice a year. That is a tremendous burden. The people that opt not to participate, sometimes feel excluded. So the idea of using funding for in-house group projects presents some exciting opportunities. GM: Yes, flexible options for participating. C: At ALA, there were some virtual committees and discussion of virtual membership. Q: This speaks to the need of mentoring from senior librarians to other librarians on how to connect to these organizations. Maybe we can ask the Professional Development Committee to address this? Q: Next year, can we start the process earlier? GM: From my perspective, things were late this year, mainly due to me not being familiar with how things are done and also the lateness of the California Legislature in setting the budget. Ideally, I'd like the budget to be in place before the fiscal year. This year, we will have to start next year's budget as soon as we finish this year's budget. I'd like to start next fiscal year's budget by late Spring. C: Thank you Gerry. We all appreciate the extra funding. Q: To play off of the idea of funding in-house projects/research and the campus commitment to outreach- is there an opportunity to be involved in campus-wide initiatives? There seems to be a lot of opportunities to weave the UCI Libraries' participation in different units, and get more people involved. There have to be mechanisms in place to have this happen. It seems that this is an area that LAUC-I can play a role in. GM: You have something on the agenda (Academic Senate Committee Reports) that help in that area. There are library representatives on many of these committees. There is so much going on; this may be a vehicle. C: I'd also like to mention the Staff Assembly, where there are committees that are open to all of us. Maybe we should report more to Library Items. 4. Academic Senate Committee Reports a. Council on Research, Computing, & Library Resources (G. Munoff) The Library Committee was combined with research and computers to form the new Council on Research, Computing, and Library Resources. In many ways, it still tends to function as a Committee on Research, since there is the urgent need to review research proposals, etc. Members didn't want the library and computing issues to get short shrift, so the Council discussed whether to set up subcommittees. Ultimately, the Council decided not to create subcommittees, because this would undo the restructuring and exclude broad consultation. I view the people on the Council as representatives of the broad interests of the faculty not just individual interests. And my objective is that there be enough time on the agenda to discuss library issues (whether in subcommittees or not). Since the Library Committee only met once time last year, we will probably get more time devoted to library issues in this new configuration. And by being there on the full committee, GM hopes to keep library issues to the forefront. After talking to the Chair, GM was polled for agenda items, e.g. budget, other broad issues. b. Action Committee on International & Continuing Education (A. Yang) This new committee is a combination of Extension and International Relations. Robert Garfias is the Chair. Phil Nowlen represents Extension; Ermanno Bencivenga represents the Education Abroad program Issues discussed: New Chancellor & new EVC - part-time master degree programs. Authentication of users; continuing education; How to get more information especially with School of Engineering and GSM; part-time M.A Programs are an ongoing discussion International Studies program - Prof. Garfias is interested in enhancing students' international experience c. Graduate Council (E. Broidy) This Council didn't get restructured. It meets once a month for 3 hours; in January it met for four 5-hour meetings. Issues discussed: Fall Q - attention to TA strike; Fred Wan sits as ex officio member He gives 45 minutes report at each meeting. The TA strike may surface again; the cooling off period is ending soon. Ratio of graduate students to undergraduates - we are out of whack - there are more undergraduate than graduate for an institution of our size. How UCI can recruit more graduate students Ways to enhance graduate student funding - ties into TA strike Faculty mentor external relationship with a for-profit lab or business; systemwide issue for the sciences. What impact on relationship of student to mentor? Number of graduate students with relation to for-profit organizations and how that impacts that relationship Response to Social Ecology external review Internal review, external review, report on external review, Grad Council report, school responds, Grad Council responds - under an Acting Dean EB is on 2 subcommittees. One of them is the Academic Process subcommittee. Every time a department/unit changes its graduate requirements, the Graduate Council turns over to this subcommittee for review. Graduate Rights & Responsibilities Subcommittee was just formed. d. Council on Planning & Budget (J. Gelfand) The Council on Planning and Budget merged the former Committees on Planning and Budget, and Land Use and Environment. This Council meets 2x month and there are also subcommittees Jim Given is the Chair This is the 2nd year of Julia's term. It is a very busy Council, very paper-intensive. This Council is impacted by the statewide budget and statewide committees. And whenever there is a Regent's meeting, there are more reports to read. Land Use, Environmental Planning Committee on Environmental Control Julia is representative; meets every 5-6 weeks Planning reports - university architects, security, facilities, etc. Chancellor convenes that meeting Planning & Budget critical issues: -planning for 10th campus -search for chancellor of new campus -responds to materials from Graduate Council and new programs -ratio of students in terms of buildings & facilities -plan for research park and other new buildings -growth of Irvine Research Units (IRUs) to Organized Research Units (ORUs) -program development in multidisciplinary areas; impact on resources and facilities -money is tight; data from peer institutions (public & private comparison 8 institutions) -security issues; long-term commitments of resources -Prof. Rae Linda Brown - Assistant to the Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs - Role of faculty replacing VERIPs; composed a policy; librarians are not part of this policy; e. Council on Rights, Responsibilities & Welfare (J. Kaufman) The Council on Rights, Responsibilities and Welfare consolidated the former Committees on University and Faculty Welfare, Academic Freedom, Affirmative Action, and Emeritae/i. The Faculty Welfare Committee used to meet once a month; this new Council meets once a month so other issues are not always covered; there is a need for more meetings or to spend equal time. Some Council issues: Karen (Kari) Meyers is the new UCI TitleIX/Sexual Harassment Officer, Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. She may plan to revise the campus policy on sexual harassment. Kari might be a possible speaker to LAUC-I Academic Freedom Committee - campus email policy Systemwide email policy and each campus version JK was on the campus task force working on campus policy; Disciplinary policy Anne Fink (formerly Paden) from the Benefits Office provides reports. UCOP - entire medical benefit package is out for bid this year - systemwide committee reviewing Dual career f. Action Committee on Teaching (C. Palmer) This is the first year that they've had a librarian as a member. Seems very focused. Linda Levine ,Social Ecology, Chair Issues discussed: Pragmatic approach on how to improve teaching. Implementation of standardized teaching evaluation forms across campus. How to make information available. Chair of CAP mentioned that they like the way the Physics Department presented teaching evaluations Good statistical records by course, faculty member, etc. Overall teaching; how teaching ranks compared to other teachers. How to promote good teaching on a research campus. 5. Updates & Announcements -LAUC Proposal to Add Steps to the Librarian Salary Series. Fall Assembly resolution passed to go forward with a proposal. Kari Lucas drafted proposal and received many responses. There is no final form yet; though most people are in agreement with proposal and the process. CP will keep you informed. LAUC is planning to form a delegation take this proposal to UCOP Membership not yet determined Proposal discussed at Library Council. -DRAFT Procedures for the Appointment and Review of Librarians at UCI Judy Kaufman is drafting Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians. LAUC-I will review this document at the LAUC-I General Membership Meeting on the April 12th meeting. LAUC-I will have an opportunity to comment upon this document. JG: Cal State faculty including librarians received a 3% raise retroactive to October 1998; if everything holds with budget they are proposing a 6% increase; big issues for comparisons It was negotiated with the union J. Gelfand moved to adjourn K. Collins seconded. Meeting adjourned 2:40pm