LAUC Committee on Professional Governance

Annual Report 2000/01 Appendix B

Draft Letter to ULs from LAUC President / Committee on Professional Governance

Draft: September 2001.

I am writing in response to your letter dated January 4, 2001, which summarized the conversation between the University Librarians Group, Barb Lucas, Chair of the LAUC Committee on Professional Governance, and me concerning the place and weight of Criterion 1 activities in advancement through the Librarian series.

In your letter, you indicated that you are interested in turning the focus of the discussion toward how LAUC and the University Librarians can help librarians build upon outstanding accomplishments in Criterion 1 to advance libraries and the profession through activities in the other areas of Criteria 2-4. The Professional Governance committee members are very appreciative of your willingness to support these activities, and they have provided some strategies (below).

This support is necessary because the librarians of UC are working in a different environment today than they were in the past. A decade ago, there were nearly 100 more librarians in LAUC than there are today, and we are serving more users than ever. Increased team-based decision making means more time taken in team and committee work, with correspondingly less time available for other activities. The pace of change in the technical aspects of our jobs has accelerated, requiring more time to simply keep our day-to-day job skills up to date. There is simply less time available in the normal work day to engage in the professional activities of Criteria 2-4 because of the changes in on-the-job demands. There are also inequalities of opportunity for participation in outside activities between the campuses and even between units on one campus. This is why we are pursuing this with the University Librarians system-wide.

The most critically needed resource is time. Specifically, institutional commitments to allow librarians the time they need to participate fully in Criterion 2-4 activities. Money itself is not the biggest issue – the LAUC research committee has funds to support research at both local and state-wide levels, but the committee receives fewer proposals now than in years past.

The following are some initiatives our group has proposed and would like to ask the University Librarians group to consider:

• establishment of a paid sabbatical program to support research, creative activities, and continuing education
• support for flexible work schedules for librarians
• creating a culture that encourages mentoring librarians in developing skills in research, grantsmanship, publishing and leadership activities. This would include encouraging librarians with skills in these areas to mentor their colleagues and recognizing and rewarding mentoring activities as significant in performance evaluation.
• flexibility in the use of professional development funds available to librarians on each campus. In some cases that professional development money is restricted to use for attending meetings and workshops. Individuals may be better served by being able to use that money for society memberships, journals, or other needs.
• University Librarians can provide opportunities for librarians through appointments and recommendations to university, system-wide, and professional organizations.

The concept of a paid sabbatical/research leave program is new for librarians at UC and potentially the most costly of these initiatives. There are models for such programs within the profession, including at least two formal research support programs on UC campuses – at Riverside and at Davis. LAUC would be more than willing to work with you on developing this concept further and identifying model programs elsewhere. It might be helpful to meet together again to discuss these proposals.

LAUC members are also interested in achieving a more consistent understanding and application of the criteria for advancement among our campuses. Although we recognize that each campus culture is unique, we feel that through open and honest communication and a sometimes difficult examination of the historical reasons for practices on each campus, we will reach that better understanding.

[closing, same as in original]