|
Librarians Association of the |
Committee members were great this year, and participated fully in discussions, easing my task as Chair. The three possible candidates for Chair next year discussed among themselves this opportunity, with Jim Crooks (UCI) volunteering. This appointment is made by LAUC of course, and not the Committee.
The Committee reviewed UCB's bylaws at the request of UCB, with several comments submitted to UCB. One Committee member's comment stood out from the rest, but may not require attention. This Committee notes it however. Depending on interpretation, the election of UCB members-at-large as specified in their bylaws might conflict with LAUC statewide bylaws. The statewide LAUC Bylaw Article VI, Section 3.a on Divisional Officers, states "Divisional officers shall be chosen from the full voting membership of the Division." The statewide LAUC Bylaw Article VI, Section 4.a on Divisional committee organization and structure, states "Members of any executive committee or council shall be elected by the membership of the Division."
The UCB Executive Committee includes elected members-at-large as specified in their bylaws. The Affiliated Libraries member-at-large is elected by the Affiliated Libraries members, and the Library members- at-large are elected by the Library members. Thus the UCB Executive Committee is not "elected by the membership of the Division" if one chooses a strict interpretation of that to mean the "full voting membership of the Division." Certainly the context is there for a strict interpretation, given that these two statewide bylaws speaking about divisional membership are in close proximity. A loose interpretation would allow election by Division membership suiting themselves. The statewide Bylaw Article VI, Section 4.a is imprecise as to exactly what constitutes "the membership of the Division" as it participates in electing its Executive Committee members, since words such as "full" are absent. So maybe everything is fine as it is.
The Committee's final report from last year noted the need to revise the duties of the Past President and to consider the use of the word "cultural" in the Diversity Committee's responsibilities, as well as pointing out some hanging queries/potential issues regarding LAUC bylaws and the APM. These were addressed by the LAUC Executive Board, formulated into bylaws revisions, and were voted upon and accepted by LAUC.
At end of February, the Committee sent to the LAUC President recommended bylaws revisions for its standing charge. The Committee recommended dropping the "annual" stipulation in its charge to review LAUC's bylaws, adding a stipulation that Divisions are required to review their divisional bylaws after a statewide change, and adding a stipulation that Divisions are to notify the statewide Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction after the divisional revisions. The Committee's suggested bylaws changes follow.
a) Review annually, or at the special request of the President, the LAUC Bylaws and submit recommendations to the President.
This is overly prescriptive in stating that the Committee on Committees review annually the LAUC Bylaws. Flexibility in the bylaws language is useful, and we would remove the time specificity. We advise that this be revised to
a) Reviews the LAUC Bylaws at the special request of the LAUC President.
b) Review the Divisions' Bylaws to assure that they are consistent with the LAUC Bylaws. (See Article VI, Section 2.d.)Article VI, Section 2.d. is as follows:
Article VI. Divisions
Section 2. Each Division shall establish Bylaws governing the conduct of business and the nomination and election of representatives to the Assembly, subject to the following conditions:
d. Whereas the LAUC Bylaws set certain restrictions on the organization of Divisions, Divisional Bylaws shall be subject to review by the Standing Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction. (See Article VIII, Section 1.j.1.)
This Committee feels that divisions should review their bylaws after a statewide bylaw revision, and that divisions should notify this Committee after they revise their divisional bylaws, thus prompting a look by this Committee. Large-scale changes in the LAUC Bylaws should trigger a review of the divisional bylaws, and it would be useful to stipulate it in the statewide bylaws. We advise a bylaws revision from
Article VI. Divisions. Section 2.d. Whereas the LAUC Bylaws set certain restrictions on the organization of Divisions, Divisional Bylaws shall be subject to review by the Standing Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jrisdiction. (See Article VIII, Section 1.j.1.)
to
Article VI. Divisions. Section 2d. Whereas the LAUC Bylaws set certain restrictions on the organization of Divisions, Divisional Bylaws should be reviewed by Divisions after LAUC Bylaws are revised, and shall be subject to review by the Standing Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction, who shall be notified by Divisions when Divisional Bylaws are revised. (See Article VIII, Section 1.j.1.)