LAUC-I General Meeting - Sept 25, 1998, 1-3pm SL 104  

Present: Broidy, Kjaer, Palmer, Womack, Manaka, Clark, McAdam, Lessick, Gottneid, Tseng, Kugler, Landis, Ford, Tanji (notetaker)  

1. Agenda Review.  

Special refreshments were served in honor of Cheryl Kugler. Cheryl is leaving UCI for a new position at Claremont Colleges.  

2. The LAUC - I Meeting Schedule for 1998/99 was distributed. See it also on the LAUC-I Homepage http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~lauciweb  

3. The refreshment signup sheet (which entails bringing refreshments and beverage setup/cleanup) was routed around the table. Members were encouraged to volunteer.  

October 12, 1998 Cathy Palmer
November 9, 1998 Tim McAdam
December 7, 1998 Susan Lessick
February 8, 1999 Lydia Shahid
March 8, 1999 Ellen Broidy
April 12, 1999 Bill Landis
May 10, 1999
June 14, 1999
August 9, 1999 Pauline Manaka    

4. Cheryl Kugler reported on the LAUC Transitional meeting.  

a. Dates & locales of LAUC Assemblies Fall Assembly: UCSF - Dec 11 - info on their website Spring Assembly: UCR - Date to be arranged (possibly May 26)  

b. LAUC Committee on Professional Governance - Draft Questionnaire on Librarian Recruitment & Retention.   All LAUC members were sent via email a prototype of the survey that will be sent to personnel officers. NOTE: Members were encouraged to send suggestions for changes to the draft survey (they were not being asked to respond to the survey.)  

c. Many divisions are assigning some of their members to read minutes of other divisions. When minutes are posted, the LAUC President is notified and this information is posted on the LAUC chairs listserve.  

d. UCR Proposal for an Institute on Scholarly Research.   The Institute is proposed for the Spring and is intended for scholars & librarians in the UC system. Liz Langston and another UCR person are volunteering to develop the institute. LAUC approved the development of the institute and discussed funding. Cheryl is passing the paperwork of the proposal to Cathy Palmer.    

e. Call & Calendar for the 98/99 Professional Development Research Grants. Electronic submission is no longer possible - proposals must be submitted in print format. Information at: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/call.html    

5. A special election is needed since Cheryl Kugler is leaving, and Cathy Palmer is the new Chair of LAUC-I.  

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect - 3yr commitment (Past Chair serves as Chair of Election committee)  

Cultural Diversity Committee (A. Frank resigned) - pro tem position could be appointed - let Cathy Palmer know if you want to volunteer; they have asked to meet with the LAUC-I Executive Board to discuss program planning.  

6. Announcement

Pauline wanted to thank the LAUC-I membership on behalf of the Professional Development Committee. There was a good return rate on the survey they distributed. They hope to be on the agenda for the next LAUC-I meeting to talk about professional develop ment funds further.  

7. Academic Senate appointments.  

a. Cathy Palmer distributed a list of Academic Senate appointments (this is also on the LAUC-I homepage).  

Question: Are these 2- or 3-year terms? Based on past practice, Cathy listed these as 3-year appointments, but the Academic Senate appointments may have changed to 2 years as part of the reorganization of Academic Senate Committees. ACTION: Cathy will double-check the terms.  

b. If you are an Academic Senate appointee and have not been contacted for scheduling regular meetings, try contacting the Senate office administrative assistant or check their web page http://www.senate.uci.edu/~senate/  

Cathy has already submitted the list of the library representatives to Marge Mullen. ACTION: Cathy will ask about procedures for updating information.  

c. The Membership discussed various mechanisms for reporting back to LAUC-I on issues and activities occurring in the Academic Senate committees.  

Some suggestions were:  

-Systematic reporting (example 2x/yr or once a quarter)  

-LAUC-I Chair putting out a call for any information to report  

-End-of-year, short written report of issues - helpful when you change membership  

-Incorporate in agenda setting & minutes-setting of general membership meetings.    

8. LAUC-I Laptop  

-Modem, cd-rom drive, network connection; windows (no NT)  

-Any LAUC-I members can check it out from the MRC - 3 day period    

QUESTION: Do members need to fill out a "removal of UCI property" form the first time they check this out?  

ACTION - Executive Board will investigate guidelines and procedures and will send out an announcement if appropriate.

ACTION - Recommend getting another laptop - $2,400. LAUC-I Executive Board will discuss this.    

9. Recruitments.  

-Serials Cataloger interviews - dates given by Sally Tseng. No presentation was requested, instead at an open session, candidates will give a summary of their background and we can ask them questions.  

-Engineering & ICS Librarian - send in comments to Judy Horn - search committee meeting to discuss candidates    

10. Progress reports from Standing & Ad Hoc Committees; written as well as delivered at meeting.  

-Judy Horn is the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on LAUC-I Archives - They hope to complete their charge by December and are asking for extension until then.  

-Carol Womack Chair of the LAUC-I Handbook Committee. They recommend that a person or committee be assigned to continue updating it.   Missing: consumers guide - probably not necessary anymore. It was noted that the format overlaps with the LAUC-I website and needs to be examined further.  

There are 2 versions of the Handbook, the committee recommends using Version 2. There was some discussion about using the term "official" (since the Handbook is not officially recognized by Academic Personnel), so it was suggested that we use the phras e "copy of record".  

The LAUC-I Executive Board will review the ad hoc committee's recommendations and will consider discharging them. The Executive Board will need to discuss the maintenance and responsibility for the Handbook vis-a-vis the website (some suggestions made at the meeting were the Academic Librarianship Committee or the Committee on Plans & Policies).    

11. Evaluation of the Two-Year Delegation Pilot Program.  

Associate Executive Vice Chancellor Herbert Killackey will be at our next general membership meeting (NOTE the room change: ML 570).  

The Pilot program is the delegation of authority to the University Librarian for normal merit increase actions and "No Action" cases. Individuals are free to comment directly to Killackey about the pilot program.  

There was much discussion about the pilot program, here are some of the comments made by individual members at the meeting:    

-Parallels were made between librarian and faculty reviews. Some members commented that the librarian peer process should be analogous as much as possible to the faculty /academic process or model for reviews.  

-Some members pointed out that we are different from faculty - it may make more sense to have the UL make the final decision. A UL might be able to make a better decision based on a more informed reading of the file.  

-Some members stated a preference for having the ultimate decision made outside of the library.  

Example: By the time that it gets to the top - there are people in Administration that do not look carefully at the file, and just look at what supervisor has written.  

Example: Sometimes the process is affected because of personnel changes in Library Administration.  

-Pilot program - path of files.  

Normal merit or "no action" files went from the Review Initiator, to AUL, to LRC, to UL. The UCI Libraries Personnel office did the checklist - biggest problem was to find a place to review the files in a confidential manner.  

Other files going through the full review process went from the Review Initiator, to AUL, to UL, to LRC, to the Executive Vice Chancellor.  

LRC can appoint an ad hoc committee - ad hoc necessary for certain steps
LRC sees Ad Hoc comments
LRC doesn't make their recommendation until after seeing Ad Hoc comments; also LRC can act as the ad hoc committee

Issues: if UL makes final decision, what would the Academic Personnel's role be? What would be the appeal process?  

-Is it a good idea to have the final signature from an EVC who may not know us well? One person commented that in the past Bill Parker really looked at the files - letters, etc. He knew what was in the files & could address them. Academic Personnel really bases its decisions on the documentation in the file, not the personalities of people. If you bring in neutral people - sometimes there is more objectivity.  

-Does EVC rubberstamp? Or does EVC provide objective viewpoint?  

-Should the EVC be the final signature - now Academic Personnel acts as a watch guard for the process.  

-How can we continue to bring in expertise of Academic Personnel in some meaningful way to make the process more successful.  

-Some concern was expressed if the UL was the final decision-maker. For example, if it is a busy year, the UL might just defer to the AUL's decision.  

-Useful to have Academic Personnel meet with librarians to answer questions.  

-Who is the final signatory? What's the process? Not addressed by the letter. It is more important for a clear delineation of the process and & that there is an opportunity for outside input.  

-If the UL is the final signatory, we run the danger of losing that outside oversight.  

-Currently the relationship between LRC and AP is consultative, and interpretative.  

-Differences between two models - LRC gets to see UL letter - should LRC/UL sees file at same point?  

-One suggestion - all uncontested actions go to UL; contested actions go through path with EVC; the only problem is that the AP will only deal with problem cases & would not have experience with normal cases.  

-LRC should meet with new UL and recommend that all levels review the entire file not just the recommendations.  

-Proposal - keep pilot project for one more year, but have a discussion further regarding whether to extend the project to all cases--having one more year of pilot project gives us some more experience--afterwards revisit entire issue and extension of authority  

If we don't give an opinion - this will impact the next cycle
Needs a recommendation - CP will send out a message to LAUC-I since no quorum present.    

Broidy moved that the meeting be adjourned, Lessick seconded.

Meeting adjourned 2:50pm