October 1996 Minutes

LAUC-SD Membership Meeting
Minutes
October 17, 1996

Present: Leslie Abrams, Linda Barnhart, Garrett Bowles, Amy Butros,
Karen Cargille, Lynda Claassen (chair), Ronnie Coates, Kathy Creely,
Tammy Dearie, Crystal Graham, Ruth Gustafson, Jackie Hanson, Christy
Hightower, Elliot Kanter, Richard Lindemann, Kari Lucas, Bruce Miller,
Alice Perez, Beverly Renford, Becky Ringler, Julie Sih, Dawn Talbot,
Esteban Valdez, Richard Wang, Kathy Whitley (recorder).

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. Beverly Renford introduced Jennifer (Jenny) Reiswig, the new BML
librarian.

2. Lynda Claassen bid farewell to Julie Sih who is leaving soon to
become a full-time mother.

3. The statewide assembly will be December 8 in Berkeley. Peter Lyman
will chair, and Richard Lucier will be keynote speaker.

4. Kathy Whitley reported that treasury contains $597.77 and requested
everyone to forward their contributions for this year to her. Lynda
propose that we target December 17 as a date for a holiday party.

BUSINESS

1. Academic Review issues - Tammy Dearie reminded us that the language
approved last spring regarding University-wide and LAUC service moving
from section A to section C of the review documents will be forwarded to
Labor Relations Office (and from this office to the union) and the
Academic Affairs Office for endorsement. Jackie will put the new
document on the Web in both the LPO site and the LAUC site. These
offices have not questioned any wording in the past and it is expected
that they will approve the changes.

Last spring Karen Cargille had asked a group headed by Richard
Lindemann to integrate wording about Shared Decision Making into the ARP
manual. The wording suggested by Richard was approved with minor
changes to remain consistent with statewide wording as follows:

[p. 16]
d. The Department Head shall thoroughly evaluate the Candidate's
professional service... In evaluating the Candidate's performance the
Department Head shall consider the Candidate's consistency of
performance, grasp of library methods, command of subject area,
continued growth in field, judgment, leadership, originality, ability to
work effectively with others [addition] and contribute to and work
effectively in shared decision making processes [end of addition], and
ability to relate functions to the general goals ...

Additionally, Richard suggested a wording change on p.13, section
d.5.I.A. (Candidate's Self-Evaluation; Review of Professional
Performance) as follows:

Professional Competence and Service Within the Library... Include here
[addition] mention of [end of addition] substantive documents, such as
reports and manuals...

This wording change was approved.

Lynda Claassen will notify PERT of the first change, and both these
changes will be incorporated into the copy sent forward to Labor
Relations and Academic Affairs. Jackie mentioned that the revised
Manual will be posted on the Web and will not be distributed to every
LAUC member. She will make a few copies to be available in LPO.

2. Accelerated Advancement - Tammy Dearie started this discussion
noting that of 25 files reviewed this year, 6 were "accelerated"
requests. This was a large percentage compared with previous years.
Questions arose in CAPA as to what "accelerated" means. Different
definitions were suggested in different files, and CAPA wanted to bring
the issue before the membership.

Discussion: Kari drafted a white paper proposal distributed before the
meeting (text follows these minutes). Our object in discussing needs to
be agreement on a definition and a common understanding of the
definition. Especially relevant is a consideration of what is
"exceptional" for moving from Assistant to Associate to Full Librarian.
Jackie questioned how much information had been gathered from other UC's
-- Kari found a Web site at Berkeley, but not much for other campuses.
It was agreed this information would be useful to pursue. Tammy noted
that the faculty member committee has had a relatively large number of
accelerated requests recently as well--the sense there is the faculty
are taking on more responsibility and working harder. Jackie feels she
has seen the caliber of performance for UCSD librarians rising steadily
over the years, making it difficult to establish a benchmark. Karen
Cargille suggested that it will be difficult to quantify and that
perhaps all we can do is give examples and some guidance on what is
expected in section A versus B-D. Richard Lindemann felt that
quantification was not possible, that a fuller discussion of the
guidelines was warranted to establish benchmarks. A paper could expand
on what is expected in each area, but that there may really be no
generalities and each case must be evaluated in an ad hoc fashion. Ruth
Gustafson wondered whether the criteria used last year could be used as
a basis. Tammy feels a group other than CAPA should take on this task.
Ginny wondered whether a recommendation could be made in time for spring
deliberations. Richard pointed out that even if a group cannot complete
the entire task, we should start now. Karen suggested a call for
volunteers and then CAPA could choose one person to participate as well.
Richard agreed to lead a group if Lynda puts out a call for
participation. Target date for a draft is next LAUC meeting (December
17) -- charge will be "provision of language clarifying 'accelerated
advancement/promotion.'"

Additional discussion revolved around weight of criteria in A versus
criteria in B-D. Dawn felt a broader discussion might be implied --
Librarian V has been rare, but the numbers have been increasing. Is
there a culture change here that should be looked at. Before,
committees have been reluctant to award V -- should we loosen this
attitude? Ginny thought a discussion could include a philosophy for
rewarding librarians and recognizing a broad range of activities among
different librarians, mainly to ensure some financial recognition.


3. Programmatic Priorities Document - Lynda noted that Jerry has asked
for feedback and that LAUC is an appropriate avenue for feedback outside
of the library departments. Julie mentioned again her comments from the
open meeting -- with cuts involving goals of the library as a whole,
what is an appropriate level of B-D activities in this light? Small
units can have disproportionate effects--department heads in smaller
departments may have to insure that their librarians cut back, while
other department heads may leave it to the librarians' discretion.

Discussion: Lynda pointed out that A has historically been primary, but
the feeling has been that there should be 'something' in B-D. Jackie
mentioned that both the past and current UL philosophy has been that A
is most important and that B-D are important to the extent that they
enhance A. These days librarians cannot be effective without doing some
B-D. Kari wondered whether people are "killing themselves" and still
not getting an accelerated advancement, and their response is to try
even harder. Is the benchmark so high that everything goes up? Could
we suggest something in either B or C or D rather than something in all
categories and stick with it? Culture belies the words. Karen felt
we are doing this to ourselves--can we say lighten up, especially to
newer librarians. Kathy C. suggested that people be allowed to focus on
just one key item in B-D. Richard felt that PPD is too nebulous to
respond to by LAUC. Karen and Jackie noted that reassignment will be an
issue.

The agreement was that it is too soon to tell about response to Jerry on
PPD. Kari offered that department heads can set tone, can advise an
individual on deficiencies in A when he/she is doing too much B-D.

The discussion shifted to ways of rewarding librarians' efforts. Kari
pointed out that the economy is difficult, 2 years between reviews can
be a long time. Lynda wondered whether statewide LAUC could take up the
compensation aspect of this issue. Jackie feels situation not
"hopeless." Lynda didn't want just to add steps to the table, but it
might be possible to raise them all. Tammy countered that people "top
out" quickly, so more steps would offer an option. Julie suggested that
administrators could have A include management performance and reduce B-
D accordingly. Kari said that Berkeley has a statement that says they
do reward managerial tasks. We currently do not look at management as a
criterion -- you can advance whether you manage or not. Jackie noted
that Jerry would welcome some suggestions on rewards to librarians. We
can't tack money on to annual salaries; we haven't yet done different
travel levels as a compensation method; important that reflects
membership as a whole. Jackie could poll other personnel librarians in
UC's to share "accelerated" wording. Karen suggested we could have a
"Librarian of the Year" award. Richard commented that APM >>is<< the
reward system. Julie pointed out that "not performing to standard" is
not defined currently; the distinctions are blurry in middle, but
individuals get the same financial reward. Karen noted that one reaches
the "every 3 years" review point and "none at all" point very fast. Amy
said that UCLA had a "distinguished librarian" award which was not well
met.

4. Ruth asked whether anyone wanted her to take information or
questions to Lucier and Lyman at state assembly "What will the research
library look like in 10 years and what will librarians in research
libraries be doing?"

NEW BUSINESS

1. Julie noted that we will need a volunteer to take on liaison with
"New Horizons" when she leaves.

Next scheduled LAUC meeting - December 17.


Adjourned at 3:05pm

Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Whitley