Skip to main content
The Library The Library
  1. HOME
  2. About
  3. LAUC-SD
  4. 0_files
  5. exec-board-minutes
  6. 2002-2003
  7. January 2003

January 2003

LAUC-SD
Executive Board Meeting

 

14 January 2003

10:30-NOON

SSH Library, Research Services Conference Room

 

PRESENT

Elizabeth Cowell (Chair), Kathy Creely (Recorder), Jenny Reiswig , Duffy Tweedy, Sam Dunlap , Vicki Williamson, Laura Galvan-Estrada, Shi Deng

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

  1. Thanks and farewell to Steve Lawson.  Steve was thanked for his service to LAUC.  He will be sending his new email address and URL .
  2. Kathy Creely was thanked for stepping in as the new Secretary/Treasurer for the remainder of Steve’s term.

  3. Julie Yang is the new statewide Diversity Committee representative for UCSD.

 

DISCUSSION

 

  1. LAUC Buddy update.  Katy Farrell needs a LAUC buddy.

 

  1. CPG Report discussion. 

 

LAUC chair, Esther Grassian’s background notes had been distributed prior to the meeting. 

 

At the Fall Assembly there was a lot of discussion about quick fixes to wording in the LAUC position papers, so that they would match the reality of current scales.  The statewide Executive Board decided to make some revisions to the wording, but not to make substantive revisions. 

 

Galvan-Estrada recommended that we look at the recommendations made by CPG and see what to do at the local level.  Cowell agreed that we should go through the recommendations first to get closure on those, and then look at the long-term issues. 

 

Recommendation #1 has already been done, as the results of the survey have been shared with concerned parties.

 

Recommendation #2 states that, “More study is needed about how UC librarians are reviewed, how they feel about the review process, and whether they want to change the review criteria. One possible avenue would be a LAUC grant to an individual librarian or librarians.”   There was confusion about recommendation #2.  No one has volunteered to take this on as a research project.  Some campuses were unhappy with the survey, while others (including UCSD) felt that the results were clear enough on the important questions.

Reiswigcommented that there was not consensus within CPG on this recommendation and that therefore it’s not a mandate.  Dunlap questioned whether any action was needed.

 

Recommendation #3 is that Position Paper #1 should be revised as proposed by the Committee on Professional Governance in August 2001.  Galvan-Estrada has the text of the proposed revisions, which consist mainly of striking clauses from part 4 that have to do with step V.  The Assembly also discussed the need for a new position paper to cover the Distinguished step.  Does the LAUC-SD membership agree?  Reiswig commented that we can also have a local position paper on this and that in fact most other campuses already do have language in place addressing the Distinguished step.  UCSD was notably lacking in a summary of these local papers handed out at the 1999 Spring Assembly.  Reiswig will try to locate a copy of that handout, as it could be helpful in writing a UCSD paper.  Dunlap commented that at the very least we should put a copy of the handout in the CAPA binder if it’s not there already.

 

Recommendation #4 states that “This report will be presented to the LAUC President and LAUC Executive Board to study and take action as appropriate. The Committee recommends that LAUC work with ULs and UCOP to coordinate any revisions to Position Paper #1 with revisions to the Salary Scale Notes.”   Galvan-Estrada explained that salary scale notes don’t agree/coincide with the new salary scale.  LAUC could just point it out to the appropriate administrators and work with the ULs and UCOP to get the notes changed.  Reiswig stated that she thought the notes have already been changed so this may be a moot point.

 

For the next step at the local level it was decided that a vote should be taken at the membership meeting.  The vote would be on approving (or not)  the proposed revisions to position paper #1.  We will also have a discussion on whether to go ahead and write a local position paper on the Distinguished step.  The options would be to wait for statewide to come up with a paper or to write one locally.

 

Statewide Executive Board would be taking the local feedback to the ULs.

 

Long-term issues:

 

Capstone vs. Distinguished.  The CPG Survey committee was not in agreement on the meaning of the survey results on this issue.  The results were confusing and ambivalent.  CPG is waiting for feedback from campuses, but it is not clear what kind of feedback they are expecting.  Cowell will clarify this with Grassian. 

 

Decoupling Distinguished designation from the salary scale.  The Survey question #1 asked, “Should there be a distinguished designation in the librarian salary scale?”  The results on this question were clear: 78% answered NO.  So librarians responding to the survey were clearly in favor of decoupling.   This is a union issue also.  LAUC doesn’t have the authority to effect this change.  It’s a big issue which would take a lot of work.   Should LAUC take this on as an issue, and work with the ULs, the Union, etc.?  We need feedback from the membership to decide this. 

 

 

  1. 1/21 Membership meeting agenda.

 

 It was decided that the main agenda item would be a discussion of the recommendations in the 2001/2002 report from the statewide Committee on Professional Governance.  Dunlap suggested that we identify the issues which need discussion and resolution in the short term, to discuss at the membership meeting, and put the longer-term issues off to a later meeting.

 

Cowellwill put the agenda together and annotate it with links to the relevant documents.  Items will include:

·        Fall Assembly report

·        Local Executive Board’s meeting with Brian Schottlaender

·        Introduction of new members

·        Discussion of CPG report.  Feedback.  Vote on revisions to position paper #1.

·        Discussion of LAUC Task Force to revise position papers #2, 3, 4, and 5, pending results of CPG discussion above.  Prioritize which papers to look at first.  Esther wants “feedback” by end of January for consideration by Statewide Executive Board or Spring Assembly.  The Executive Board is the body that officially approves position papers, so Assembly would just be advisory.

 

Agenda item for March: Galvan-Estrada has other CPG issues, e.g. faculty status, that she would like to bring to the March membership meeting.