March 1995 Minutes

 Minutes, LAUC-SD Membership Meeting

March 14, 1995

Attending: P. Brueggeman, A. Butros, K. Cargille, H. Colson, P.
Cruse, J. Donovan, T. Echavarria, C. Graham, R. Gustafson, J.
Hanson, M. Horres, C. Jahns, E. Kanter, B. Miller, P. Mirsky, A.
Prussing, B. Renford, B. Slater, G. Steel, R. Wang, B. Westbrook,
S. Starr (recorder)

I. Announcements

1. The Chair of the LAUC Committee on Committees has sent out our
proposed revised bylaws to committee members for review.

2. The next LAUC Lunch will be 3/30/95 in Canyon View.

3. A. Prussing, Chair of the Nominating Committee, announced that
the interest forms will be distributed to members the first week
in April. J. Donovan volunteered to join Anne and K. Lucas on
this Committee.

II. Library Personnel Office Update (J. Hanson)

J. Hanson gave an update on changes that have occurred as part of
the library's reorganization of the Human Resources Cluster. She
has moved her office into the Administrative suite and Maureen
Harden has moved into her old office. J. Hanson will continue to
have oversight for Academic Reviews, but J. Tait will be handling
more of the logistical issues. J. Hanson will also continue to
serve as an advisor and will be involved in any disciplinary
situations in the Library; she will also continue to represent
UCSD at meetings with other UC Personnel Officers. M. Harden
will represent the library in human resources issues on campus.
J. Hansen will continue to chair the reclassification committee.

Three interviews have been scheduled for the Head, SIO Library
and interviews are also being scheduled for the Western European
History Bibliographer. Two candidates are currently being
interviewed for Infopath Director. The Staff Training position
has been posted with a closing date of March 30, 1995. The
Director of Media Central (not a library funded position) is
almost ready for recruitment.

III. CAPA Update (H. Colson)

The new guidelines adopted this year for writing self reviews
seem to be working well. Reviews are generally 4.5 to 5 pages
long. J. Hanson reminded the meeting that to make this a formal
guideline requires a vote of the membership and revision of our
Academic Peer Review Guidelines. This process should begin in
late Spring/early Summer to have the formal guidelines in place
for the next review cycle.

III. Research and Professional Development Report (B. Westbrook)

A summary of the survey of membership needs went out in January.
The results indicated that most people approved of expenditures
for serials using R&PD funds and most people wanted to continue
support for travel. There was little interest in expenditures of
funds for equipment (only 4 people responded to this item) and
about half wanted some kind of continuing programming (eg. 3
programs on the same topic).

IV. Salary Bifurcation

E. Kanter led a discussion of the proposal from UCOP to group non
Senate academics with staff instead of faculty when considering
salary increases. He has sent a letter to Chancellor Atkinson as
has J. Lowell (copies of Lowell's letter were distributed). This
is a very serious situation but there may still be an opportunity
to change the proposed policy. Members are encouraged to write
letters to administrators on campus and at UCOP.

V. UC Centralized Web Server

E. Kanter led a discussion of the draft proposal to establish a
centralized Web Server. He noted the positive effects of such a
proposal: centralized distribution would eliminate duplication of
effort and provide support to existing efforts. The negative
arguments are that each campus needs to tailor it's page to local
programs, that the web is changing too fast to establish policies
now, that it might be hard to keep such resources up-to-date, and
that items paid for locally (eg. electronic journals) could not
be included on such pages.

R. Miller reported that at a recent HOTS meeting it was decided
that UCB would host a listserv for discussion of the UC Digital
Library and a WEB site which would be an archive for proposals
and status reports related to the Digital Library.

Discussion continued with the following points: the proposal is
not clear on responsibilities, we need to learn from past shared
projects which have encountered some difficulties, pooling our
energy and sharing expertise should be encouraged. The document
distributed actually contained two separate proposals, one from a
Government Documents librarian and the other a draft proposal
from CDC. CDC is identifying a need; the proposal from Documents
may not be the only way to meet that need.

VI. LAUC SD Awards

Both UCLA and UCB give an award each year to a librarian of the
year. The pros and cons of establishing such an award at UCSD
were discussed. Some members felt it could be divisive and might
tend to favor those who promote themselves. Others felt that it
would be useful to recognize extraordinary performance. The
Executive Board will send a proposal out to the membership and
solicit feedback.