DRAFT Minutes
LAUC-I General Membership Meeting
Monday, 12 June 2000

1. Approval of May 8 minutes.

• Motion to accept draft minutes: Broidy. Seconded: Urrizola. Motion passed.

• LAUC EB meeting (2000-05-31), Spring Assembly (2000-06-01).
• June meeting on library at UC Merced to be held. LAUC president Inouye planning to get herself invited to the meeting.
• Possible visit by Inouye to UCI in July
• Developing LAUC issues:
  • Cost of housing in UC areas is a problem in recruiting new librarians
  • Mentoring younger librarians in becoming involved in LAUC
• Fall assembly 2000: UCB.
• Spring assembly 2001: UCI
• Letter from SLASIAC chair Carol Christ to Judson King re: CDLs involvement in K-12 initiative in California (pilot projects for K-12 CDL services, difficult to find entry into very decentralized UC outreach programs to K-12)
• LAUC committees: final reports due 2000-09-01, most gave interim reports at Spring Assembly
• Research committee (C. Palmer, chair): 4 proposals, 4 funded (funding by UCOP upon recommendation by LAUC): awarded $29,100.00 (2 totally funded, 2 partially funded)
• Discussion on effectiveness and viability of LAUC committees. Lots of confusion. LAUC EB planning a retreat to discuss LAUC committee structure this summer.
• Myron Okada (UCOP): UC has signed another 4 year contract with CA Dept. of Finance for annual budget increase of 4% across the board. UC proposing a 2% range adjustment for non-represented academics effective 2000-10-01. Consideration being given for fee reductions for dependents of UC faculty and staff.
• Afternoon program, Attaining distinguished level in Librarian series:
  • No formal statement from ULs on criteria for promotion to Librarian V.
  • Compendium of criteria from all campuses to be made available on LAUC web site.
  • UCSB UL S. Pritchard spoke unofficially to LAUC representatives regarding her thoughts on attaining the distinguished level in the Librarian series:
    • File should demonstrate leadership that has had lasting impact.
    • Librarians should begin working toward goal of Librarian V no later than promotion from Associate Librarian to Librarian.
    • File should demonstrate significant contribution to the professional literature.
    • File should demonstrate the growth of a librarian's impact and effectiveness over course of career.
    • Elements of external recognition of the career should be supported in the file.
    • Hopefully those awarded Librarian V will sustain effort throughout their remaining career.
    • No single element distinguishes someone in the Librarian series; rather, distinction characterized by lasting, cumulative contributions.
• LAUC resolution:
  • Assembly passed UCSB-promulgated resolution encouraging the Office of the President to support new library buildings on individual UC campuses. SLASIAC/UCOL have discussed similar resolution to go forward to UCOP.

• LRC Chair Lucas presented the following motion for the LRC and LAUC-I Executive Board, which was seconded by Urrizola.
  • We move that the Factual Resume Guidelines for Librarians be approved for use during the 2000/2001 review cycle. We further move that the application of the guidelines be evaluated at the end of the review cycle in June, 2001.
• Discussion:
  • Lucas: LRC planning to hold office hours for librarians assembling factual resumes and review dossiers
  • Is document sufficient for major milestone promotions: career status, Associate Librarian, Librarian, and promotion to distinguished step?
  • Does librarian need a paragraph or so as a general introduction in which they can make their case for promotion?
  • How do we want this to be approved/issued/used? Should it be binding or voluntary once it is recommended to the UL?
  • LSA is in criterion 1, but LAUC-I isn't; this doesn't seem to balance? Seems like these should both fall under the same criteria or there should be a better articulation of why they fall under different criteria.
  • Guidelines don't address the points of significant full-career review (need to be explicit about options at these points); does LRC perhaps need to look at and address the significant review periods?
  • Perhaps useful to state explicitly that this document replaces any existing documentation concerning where to place various activities within the review criteria (e.g., "for 2000/2001 this supercedes other previous documents that detail placement of activities").
  • Feeling that librarians need to be able to have a paragraph either before or after each criterion in which they can provide context and other information to reviewers about significance of activities to an organization or in the individual's career.
  • "Background" needs to have a statement about the role of the Factual Resume for the various players in the review process; it currently details the role of the guidelines but is completely silent on the role of the factual resume itself.
  • Support expressed for something like UCLA's "Statement of Professional Achievement" that is separate from the factual resume and gives the librarian a chance to do some self-evaulation.
  • Should factual resumes actually be self-evaluative? Are they already so? A certain degree of self-evaluation is inherent when individuals make the case for the professional and job-related choices they've made and in the context they present for their activities.
  • "Provide an overview of the most significant activities engaged in ..." (Guidelines, "Format and Content") is already a highly self-evaluative statement! Stating "significance" of what you do is asking individuals to be evaluative.
  • Will someone at some point address the writing of letters of peer review/evaulation? Membership expressed interest in some guidelines for writing of letters of evaluation.
  • How can librarians give feedback during year of implementation? Mainly, communicate with LRC during preparation of factual resumes.
  • Librarians need flexibility to compile a brief and concise preface to the entire document AND/OR a brief and concise preface for each criteria; this seems to be desirable to the majority of those LAUC-I members in attendance. Wording to this effect to be added to the second paragraph of "Format and Content" was discussed, but LRC members felt that the current wording does not prohibit this. Suggested additional wording that was discussed is as follows:
    • Librarians may provide a brief and concise statement at the beginning of the factual resume and/or at the beginning of each criterion section discussing the overall context for their activities.
  • Discussion of status of pilot implementation of these guidelines.
  • How will we evaluate the effectiveness of these guidelines at the end of the pilot implementation year? LAUC-I needs to have some discussion of an evaluation plan.
    • Friendly amendment to motion offered:
      • We move that the Factual Resume Guidelines for Librarians be approved for use as a 1-year pilot project during the 2000/2001 review cycle. We further move that the application of the guidelines be evaluated at the end of the review cycle in June, 2001.
      • Acceptable to mover and seconder of motion.
    • Discussion of whether or not we would--in June, 2001--evaluate the application of the guidelines, or the guidelines themselves?
    • Friendly amendment to motion offered:
      • Strike "the application of" from the second sentence of the motion.
      • Motion as amended:
      • We move that the Factual Resume Guidelines for Librarians be approved for use as a 1-year pilot project during the 2000/2001 review cycle. We further move that the guidelines be evaluated at the end of the review cycle in June, 2001.
      • Acceptable to mover and seconder of motion.
• Question called.
• Vote taken and the motion, as twice amended, was passed.

NOTE: The next LAUC-I General Meeting will be held on Monday, July 17th, 1-3 PM in SL 104.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.