Site Contents
November 5, 2004
8:30AM to 11:30AM
Boalt Hall
T. Huwe called the meeting to order.
The minutes are not ready to approve as not everyone has read them.
Action Item: D. Barclay will redistribute the minutes so the Executive Board can approve them online.
The LAUC executive board had a free-ranging discussion of the previous day’s Fall Assembly meeting.
A. Jensen liked combination of a library-focused morning topic (SOPAG) and a faculty-focused topic in afternoon (panel of UC faculty).
L. Mix: A colleague said she would have liked more time for librarians to respond.
J. Carter: Agreed with comments of L. Mix.
L. Kennedy: It is a good idea to distribute a few prepared questions in advance. Such questions serve to salt spontaneous questions from audience members.
A. Jensen: It was good having lots of faculty on the panel. It was interesting to listen to their dialog with each other.
E. Forte: I was glad that it wasn’t all librarians talking to librarians.
T. Huwe: Can we take action to get more faculty to realize what is going on in libraries and scholarly communication? Can we explore ways to get more out of our relationship with entire UC Faculty Senate instead of just the library committee?
L. Kennedy: The best way to get questions in advance is to have focus groups at the divisions. Issuing a call for advance questions doesn’t get any response.
A. Jensen: Agreed with L. Kennedy. The above strategy is more likely to get more general questions rather than questions relating to someone’s personal grievance.
T. Huwe: Should we do this kind of format again?
K. Lyons: The Elsevier issue has brought faculty and library closer together. However, we have hit a snag in that academic senate rules say that only librarians with independent teaching assignment can serve on senate committees. Maybe there can be a change in bylaws?
T. Huwe: It would be a great idea to invite non-LAUC members to Assemblies. Gary Lawrence sent an interesting response to the call for advance questions. Lawrence’s response, in paraphrase, was:
I’ve watched LAUC take steps at outreach over the years and watched them all eventually fade. It will be interesting to see how this does.
T. Huwe: I was glad to see lots of CDL people attend. Is it agreed that we will try another Fall program?
Executive Board: Yes.
Action Item: LAUC will hold similar programs as part of its Fall 2005 Assembly.
L. Mix: Can we invite people from our campuses who aren’t librarians but who do librarian-like work?
T. Huwe: We did invite such people. All are welcome. Good idea.
L. Kennedy: It is good to remind the local arrangements people that everyone is invited.
L. Kennedy: Pauline Manaka (UC Irvine) and Alan Urbanic (UC Berkeley) volunteered for this committee. The Nominations Committee is seeking names for those willing to run for Vice President/President. The nominee can’t be from UCSD because Vice President Jennifer Reiswig is appointed there.
T. Huwe: The new LAUC Web site is really useful. There is a very fast turnaround time when items on it are updated.
J. Ruttenberg: Perhaps we can construct divisional LAUC Web sites to promote LAUC visibility?
T. Huwe: The LAUC Web site is now on a par with SOPAG’s or any other similar Library Web site in UC. I will write next opinion column on pedagogical roles, and there is already a guest opinion on tap to respond. I will issue a call for others to write columns. The limitation is that we can’t allow columns that talk about the MOU or library personnel management issues—it goes beyond LAUC’s charge to touch on these areas.
T. Huwe: I will appoint an ad-hoc committee to look into changing the APM regarding the teaching role of librarians.
J. Dooley: We need to look at campus Faculty-Senate rules like the UCSC rule about librarians needing teaching assignments to serve on senate committees.
T. Huwe: We need to draw the Faculty Senate in to the process early. We need to get Faculty Senate members involved in ad-hoc committee.
M. Yonezawa: We should issue a call by email to see what the Library/Faculty Senate relationships are like on each campus.
T. Huwe: D. Barclay will compile results into a document.
Action Item: T. Huwe will issue a call by email to see what Library/Faculty Senate relationships are like on each campus. D. Barclay will compile the results into a document.
T. Huwe: I will manage strict deadlines on bylaws discussion during the spring so we have a solid document to vote on at the Spring Assembly. If we can put standing committees under standing rules, we can charge them without having a vote of the membership.
L. Kennedy: Our bylaws are holding us back. There’s a concept of a membership meeting in the bylaws on which LAUC hasn’t followed through.
T. Huwe: The Library Plans and Policies Committee should have a role in LAUC’s response to systemwide strategic plan.
T. Huwe: It is hard to get people to serve on the Diversity Committee. We have not recruited enough in the past. We don’t want to vote this committee out of existence because its role is important, and its work is pegged to recruitment patterns, which could accelerate again in the future. The Diversity Committee now has co-chairs.
K. Lyons: UCSC has a non-LAUC diversity committee that has put on programs, workshops and surveys. Maybe the statewide Diversity Committee should interact with local committees? Maybe the statewide Diversity Committee could help to establish local diversity committees where they are absent.
J. Carter: UCLA had a strong diversity committee that has been recently been given less priority status by human resources.
L. Kennedy: Davis has an active committee. T. Huwe should charge the LAUC Diversity committee to survey the state of library diversity committees on the local campuses.
T. Huwe: I’ll give the statewide Diversity Committee that charge.
Action Item: T. Huwe will charge the LAUC Diversity Committee to survey the state of library diversity committees on the local campuses.
L. Kennedy: I encourage everyone to read the Library Planning And Policies Committee report to see if LAUC needs to do anything about the report.
T. Huwe: CDL is very concerned to receive feedback on this document. The divisions must talk about this document.
B. Heyer-Gray: LAUC-Davis will meet on December 3 to talk about the report.
A. Jensen: This report is a SLASIAC document put together by UC Scholarly Communications. UCOP wants this document to advance library issues to the legislature. How the document plays out on the ground depends on LAUC and others. This document is a marketing tool for libraries.
L. Kennedy: LAUC didn’t get input because it was an outside document, but now it’s rather suddenly being considered as a replacement of the Salmon report. We need to discuss it. We can’t deal with it in one meeting.
J. Ruttenberg: LAUC-Irvine is meeting next week to talk about the report.
J. Carter: At UCLA, our local LAUC executive committee discussed the report at a brown bag and then reached out to membership with questions, thoughts. This was a good way to get people to read the document. LAUC-LA hasn’t yet talked to our UL but will. We want to meet April deadline. When we met, people started wordsmithing, unaware that this is not a draft. One problem we see with the report is that it ignores print and the needs of undergrads.
C. Tarr: LAUC-Berkeley will hold a brown bag next week with Nancy Kushigian to talk about shared print. That meeting will feed into this topic.
K. Lyons: LAUC-SC will have general meeting on Tuesday at which we will be talking about this for a while. The UCSC Committee on Library will be interested.
L. Mix: LAUC-SF had a meeting to discuss this. We only touched upon some aspects. We need more discussion.
T. Huwe: Can we involve the Faculty Senate? When and how we involve Faculty Senate is an important step in discussion.
J. Dooley: LAUC-Merced is different. Sharing is important. Merced takes a more positive view than other campuses are likely to. We haven’t had a sit-down meeting, but we will and from that produce a response. Merced has a total of thirty faculty.
M.L. Bergstrom. LAUC-SD has it on the agenda to think about how to discuss. In November we will figure out how to tackle this.
M. Yonezawa: LAUC-R is routing the document to all our committee chairs. Then we will have a meeting in two parts; one in January; one in March. We plan to break it up into logical parts. The Riverside UL called a retreat for the library staff last month—she may have adapted some of this report into her strategic plan for the library.
E. Forte: LAUC-SB has scheduled a membership meeting on Monday to discuss this. There will be more meetings.
B. Heyer-Gray: We plan to paint with broad brush strokes for first meeting.
A. Jensen: The RLF part of document caused great consternation to many at Berkeley.
T. Huwe: What are the outcomes we might want to see from this process? I see the following the next steps:
D. Barclay: We should do a “Cliff Notes” version to distribute in print to every LAUC member.
M. Yonezawa: I agree. This document should be disseminated to the library staff as well as librarians.
J. Reiswig: We need to make sure that it’s OK with U.L.s to talk to staff about this, about reaching out to staff.
T. Huwe: It’s likely that we will have an ongoing dialog about this rather than a final document.
T. Huwe: I would like to plan a conference call to get everyone involved and engaged. It is good for groups to know what others are going. I am inclined to start that in January as a conference call or a listserv. We should use what the LAUC statewide representatives know to be more strategic in our planning.
M.L. Bergstrom: Do mean every LAUC member on every SOPAG committee or just reps? Every member is a lot.
T. Huwe: I had thought every one, but we could start with just appointed representatives. We could do a conference call for appointed representatives and a listserv for all members. What we’ve done—written reports—hasn’t worked very well. Maybe we could do a call every quarter, if it works well, and have an objective for each call. This could make the appointed representatives feel more connected and make it a richer experience.
J. Reiswig: We’ve had good luck getting people to serve as LAUC reps to ACGs, SOPAG, and SLISIAC.
T. Huwe: Representation is a goal we lobbied hard for and we now have many members participating in crucial advisory bodies. We should bring LAUC statewide representatives into the discussion of the strategic plan.
A. Jensen: It is important that representatives report back to us when their groups deal with portions of strategic plan.
T. Huwe: I will try to set up conference call. The LAUC Executive Board can attend or not attend at own discretion, but hopefully there could be at least three other members involved .
Action Item: T. Huwe will set up a conference call involving the LAUC Statewide Representative and those members of the LAUC Executive Board who wish to participate.
J. Reiswig: If this works, we should also bring in the library representatives to academic senate committees.
T. Huwe: Great idea.
L. Kennedy: Committee chairs are another group to involve a little more. Should we include them on a conference call?
T. Huwe: Great idea.
T. Huwe: I will issue a call for papers before we discuss position papers. Two topics:
They would involve extensive scholarship but be easy to read. LAUC will offer honoraria to get people interested.
C. Tarr: What do you want them to write?
T. Huwe: A position paper and a reference resource. LAUC would review papers and adopt them when they are right.
E. Forte: Publishers are close to requiring us to pay royalties for ILLs. Fair use is an important topic.
T. Huwe: Do you have objections to adding authors who are not members of LAUC?
L. Mix: I think it would be good to add such people. Non LAUC, such as CDL staff, are crucial because they are doing this already.
T. Huwe: We could identify such people as consultant authors.
J. Dooley: I second Lisa’s notion.
J. Carter: I agree.
L. Kennedy: Ad-hoc groups can have non-LAUC members.
T. Huwe: CDL was delighted that LAUC officers came to meet with them. The membership will have to approve final documents.
M. L. Bergstrom: Honoraria could be a problem. How big are these groups?
L. Kennedy: Isn’t an honorarium payment for release time? Or payment for research?
T. Huwe: I want this to be a good start. We have the talent to do these reports, so we need to inspire people.
M. L. Bergstrom: How much do we have?
T. Huwe: Something like $500 or $1000 to pay groups of authors.
J. Reiswig: We can’t pay people who are working full time.
L. Kennedy: People shouldn’t do this for money.
L. Mix: Money should be used to get authors together.
T. Huwe: That makes more sense to me—travel support.
M. Yonezawa: How about more topics on the list? That will sow the seeds for more papers.
L. Kennedy: IL is not addressed in the strategic plan.
T. Huwe: Can we have a recap of topics?
T. Huwe: Should I issue a call for two of the above to get started?
Various Others: If we call for more papers, we might get more people going.
L. Mix: How many can LAUC fund at one time? We can’t get a bunch going at once.
Others: We could have a long list and get two going at once.
M. Yonezawa: Try two at once and, if there isn’t a good response, throw out more.
L. Kennedy: You need to go out and invite people you know can do the job.
T. Huwe: What if I generate a draft of what this should look like, then get local chairs to see who on their campus is interested in authoring a paper?
Others: Sounds good. Agreed.
Action Item: T. Huwe will generate a draft of what a LAUC-supported white paper should look like and then get local chairs to see who on their campus is interested in authoring such a paper
T. Huwe: It’s important for the LAUC President and Vice President to meet the U.L.s separately from the entire statewide Committee on Library, which will also meet with the U.L.s on February 24. What are some issues we might bring to their attention on February 24?
J. Ruttenberg: Professional trust issues between faculty and librarians.
T. Huwe: I think they will be interested in how we have reached out to faculty on our own. I will send a letter to UL Convenor Karen Butter in January.
Action Item: T. Huwe will send a letter to the U.L.s in January 2005.
June 2 and 3. Santa Barbara.
E. Forte: We are having a hard time finding a good meeting room.
T. Huwe: Should we schedule a call for January, February, and March 2005.
Others: We don’t have our calendars.
T. Huwe: I’ll set the call for a Tuesday morning in February. I will email you with suggested times and dates.
Action Item: T. Huwe will contact LAUC Executive Board members to arrange a date and time for the next conference call.
J. Reiswig: Let’s send a thank you to Kari Lucas for her speech about Myron Okada.
Others: Agreed.
Send comments regarding this site to Frank Lester, LAUC Web Manager. Last updated: