MINUTES LAUC Executive Board Meeting October 23, 1998 PRESENT: Kari Lucas (UCSD, President), Lucia Snowhill (UCSB, Past President), Patricia Inouye (UCD, President Elect), James Larrabee (UCB, LAUC Secretary), Andrea Sevetson (UCB), Buzz Haughton (UC Davis), Stephen Fry (UCLA), Catherine Palmer (UC Irvine); Juliet McLaren (UC Riverside), Barbara Slater (UC San Diego), Julia Kochi (UC San Francisco), Sherry DeDecker (UC Santa Barbara), Deborah Murphy (UC Santa Cruz). Guests: Linda Kennedy (UCD, LAUC representative to the Systemwide Operating and Planning Advisory Group [SOPAG]), Lee Jaffe (UC Santa Cruz, chair, Scholarly Communication Web Page Editorial Committee). The meeting was called to order by President Kari Lucas at 10:01 A.M. The agenda was approved as submitted. K. Lucas noted that strict parliamentary procedure was not necessary in Board meetings. Sturgis recommended. SECRETARY'S REPORT The minutes were approved as submitted. Rosters were distributed and corrections requested. Election calendar for 1998-1999 was distributed and approved as submitted. The LAUC Census of Librarians was submitted and additions noted. PRESIDENT'S REPORT a) Budget. K. Lucas presented the LAUC budget, describing the operating budget and summary of expenses which was distributed. Upon feedback from the divisions, she increased the amount for assemblies from $400 to $800. Each committee is funded for one face-to-face and one teleconference meeting. The travel budget has been made more specific. A question was raised as to using reserves. b) Communications. K. Lucas will send Executive Board members items marked "for distribution" or "not for distribution." She will fax materials when format is important, otherwise will e-mail. When items are faxed she will send an announcement by e-mail. If Executive Board members send her communications marked "for distribution" she will take that to mean send to the Executive Board. c) Archives update. K. Lucas spoke to Bill Roberts at UCB, where the LAUC archives are housed. He affirmed that $1000 was allocated from the 1995-96 LAUC President's fund for creating a digital finding aid which he estimated to be completed by Summer 1999 and linked to the LAUC web site. The Report on the Ad Hoc Committee on Archives (1996) recommends that the Ad Hoc Committee on Archives (Brad Westbrook, UCSD, ch; Bill Roberts, UCB; Charlotte Brown, UCLA) review on a periodic basis the success of implementing the guidelines after an initial trial period of three years. The initial trial period is over in 1999. ACTION: K. Lucas will work with P. Inouye to ensure the digitial finding aid is mounted and the review takes place. d) Fall Assembly. K. Lucas recommended that to have the Assembly run smoothly and to reduce confusion and time spent on basic procedural issues, chairs provide training and preparation for delegates in advance of the assembly. Format of reports, procedure, etc. should be addressed. K. Lucas led discussion on how committee reports should be prepared and submitted. Points raised: recommendations of committee should be at end of report in the form of motions; a mechanism is needed for coordinating motions; the Board meeting prior to the Assembly is to arrange business for the Assembly; committee chairs should get resolutions/recommendations out to the membership as soon as possible; committee chairs must understand that recommendations are not motions; divisions should meet to review recommendations. Discussion on program for the assembly ensued. Points raised included difficulties of timing in receiving committee reports; preferability of member participation to outside speakers; salary survey as focal point. Campus webpage will include information on assembly. The URL is in the LAUC website. ACTION: K. Lucas will send a memo to chairs condensing Sturgis to assist in explaining procedure to delegates. ACTION: K. Lucas took all of this information under advisement as she develops the agenda for the Assembly. K. Lucas announced that the Executive Board will meet Thursday, December 10, 1:00-5:00 pm. It is customary for Board members to have dinner afterwards. Reservation will be at Restaurant LuLu on Folsum Street. REVIEW OF LAUC STATEWIDE COMMITTEES AND CHARGES K. Lucas reviewed each committee charge. She explained that since committee chairs have commented that there is not enough time to substantially work on their charges prior to the Fall Assembly if the charges are sent too late in the Fall, she distributed draft charges to the Executive Board early in September via email, soliciting their comment. Since there is no Bylaw requirement for Executive Board approval of charges, she revised and distributed the final charges via email to committees on September 28 in the hopes of allowing the committees the utmost available time to do their work. a) Committees, Rules and Jurisdiction. The additional charge focussed on Bylaw revisions to reflect the demise of Library Council and the rise of the University Librarians Advisory Structure. b) Cultural Diversity. After consultation with the chair, K. Lucas determined that a diversity sensitivity workshop may be prepared; however, developing it would be too much for the committee to undertake this year. Therefore, the additional charges this year serve to lay the foundation for next year's additional charges which may include developing the curriculum for a diversity sensitivity training workshop that each division could adapt and conduct for its membership. 1996 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the "Many Voices Report" with Regard to Sexual Orientation Issues. The report has been in administrative limbo and its disposition needs to be resolved. K. Lucas decided the best option is to file the report (as defined in Sturgis). Approval of the report by divisions is not required or in order. L. Snowhill commented that filing makes the report available for background reference. A. Sevetson asked if it would be posted on the web site with a disclaimer to explain the significance of "filing," as well as the history of the report. K. Lucas will file the report and communicate this to the committee chair. Web site policies and procedures are still in development. A decision on whether or not to post the report on the web site will be forthcoming as various web site issues are determined throughout the year. c) Library Plans & Policies. The charge changed the focus of the committee from distance education to gathering information on campus library migration from dumb terminals to full Internet access workstations and the public service training and policy issues affected. d) Professional Governance. The charge is to develop a report recommending and justifying restructuring the Librarian Series salary scales. e) Research. The possibility of an electronic form was raised. In progress list is needed. f) Scholarly Communication. Question as to whether this committee should be structured the same as other LAUC committees (each division has a representative). Requested to consider whether a bylaws change is needed. REPORT ON SOPAG MEETING L. Kennedy reported on the SOPAG (Systemwide Operations Planning Advisory Group) meeting she attended. Meetings will be monthly. SOPAG minutes will be distributed. Question raised as to whether agendas will be distributed in advance. Meetings are issue-oriented, efficient. Past issues include patron-initiated request (PIR), whether local on-line catalogs represent collections accurately, interlibrary loan. Are these LAUC concerns or operational? B. Slater commented on impact of interlibrary loan changes on her local situation. Discussion ensued. K. Lucas asked if there is a LAUC perspective here. Compared to MELVYL users group. Other issues discussed include interlibrary loan statistics, proposal for discontinuing "Ten," the California Archives, the Tiefer report. K. Lucas commented that LAUC representatives should indicate the need for broader discussion of issues. LAUC WEBSITE Lee Jaffe, LAUC Web site administrator, fielded questions on Policies and Procedures, based on his draft statement which he presented. Clarification needed as to what is official. D. Murphy raised concern over what is public. K. Lucas clarified that a finding aid for the LAUC Archives is to be made available, not the paper files themselves. L. Kennedy commented on using the web to distribute committee draft documents. J. McLaren mentioned that URL's might not be available to the public. P. Inouye mentioned putting up draft minutes of Assemblies. K. Lucas noted the need to keep to a realistic workload for the website administrator. Timelines needed. Links to be decided by President and Secretary. Reports should be sent to the President and s/he will forward them as necessary. L. Jaffe asked if committees ought to have pages, for working papers. Discussion followed as to privacy issues, changing personnel of committees and lack of expertise, lack of history from past chairs. Website use as repository. ACTION: Web site policies and procedures will be a standing Executive Board agenda item with completion expected in May 1999. INSTITUTE PROPOSAL FROM RIVERSIDE K. Lucas introduced discussion on the institute proposal from Riverside. The recent Berkeley conference was mentioned as an example of what has been done. J. McLaren stated that the proposers hope for LAUC support and for support by academic senates of the campuses; given this, they are willing to do the work, but this is being presented as a proposal for a systemwide program. The proposal as currently written is not necessarily the form in which it is to be submitted to faculty members. Each campus might adapt to its own situation in relation to faculty. K. Lucas said that by supporting this proposal as it is written, LAUC would take it over, organizing an ad hoc group, compiling the final proposal format, setting the purpose and goals, etc. Cost and timeline must be considered. Berkeley's conference was 16 months in planning. J. McLaren stated that 12 months is an absolute minimum, more likely 16-18 months. D. Murphy said that "Research" is a good hook for faculty interest, and suggested that specialized tracks for faculty would be necessary. K. Lucas asked if potential support for the institute is there, from the faculty. Different views were expressed. The need of faculty to get resources, electronic publishing, promotion/tenure concerns were mentioned as bases for support. J.McLaren stressed need to approach faculty on each campus. A. Sevetson said that for this a different format of the proposal will be needed. K. Lucas mentioned difficulty of predicting timeliness two years in the future. B. Haughton inquired what the next step would be in an 18-month time frame. J. McLaren answered, recruiting ULs and organizing presentations to faculty on each campus. ACTION: As a preliminary step, C. Palmer will give the proposal to John King, chair of the University Committee on Libraries informally. Then K. Lucas will contact John King, and proceed with further action on the basis of his reaction. Further action from LAUC will depend on whether faculty support is forthcoming as gauged by John King. LAUC'S POST-LIBRARY COUNCIL ADVISORY ROLE IN SYSTEMWIDE LIBRARY PLANNING K. Lucas presented her informal organization chart of the new library advisory structure, based on discussions with administration, and explained the new bodies. The functions of Library Council cannot be directly assigned to any one entity. Systemwide library planning is now done by SLASIAC and SOPAG along with the University Librarians and a 4 person steering committee. Based on comments of G. Peete, SLASIAC will be more administrative in nature. S. Fry noted that Lucier, in a speech at UCLA, had said that SLASIAC has the most important role, gathering funding. SOPAG and the steering committee appear to be the main movers. K. Lucas: According to the July 1, 1998 documentation, the advisory structure will be reevaluated in 2001. At that time, LAUC may want to make changes in how its representatives are appointed. The Board discussed problems in the three-year terms of the SLASIAC and SOPAG, HOPS, HOS, and HOTS representatives, including the issue of all appointments expiring at the same time (that is no rotations were built into the structure) in 2001. L. Snowhill clarified that how the LAUC appointments were made was not proposed by LAUC. K. Lucas mentioned that changes to bylaws will be required by new structure. L. Snowhill proposed to continue to December or March meetings. Other comments or questions were raised, as to the relation of CDL to structure, consulting SLASIAC's website (minutes should be posted), SLASIAC's role as an educational group. K. Lucas said that it is OK to show the organization chart around as long as it is identified as informal and unofficial. ACTION: No specific action for this item. Information sharing only. ROUND ROBIN K. Lucas concluded the meeting with a round robin. Each division chair was asked to describe the role of its CAPA equivalent (committee on promotion, advancement, etc.) in recruitments to the librarian series. This varies considerably on each campus. The meeting was adjourned at 3:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, James Larrabee LAUC Secretary Law Library University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 larrabee@mail.law.berkeley.edu (510) 642-1114