June 1998 Minutes

 LAUC-SD Membership Meeting
June 16, 1998
Seuss Room

Attending: L. Abrams, D. Ambrose, A. Butros, K. Cargille, L. Claassen
(chair), T. Cruse, B. Culbertson, B. Deahl, J. Donovan, S. Dunlap, J.
Hansen, M. Harden, C. Hightower, K. Lucas, B. Miller, P. Mirsky, A.
Perez, A. Prussing, B. Renford, B.Slater, L. Smart, R. Sonnenberg,
D. Talbot, D. Tweedy

Meeting called to order at 3:00 p.m.

1. Election Results:
Vice-Chair/Chair Elect: Richard Lindemann
Secretary: Sam Dunlap
Member-at-Large: V. Williamson
Delagate: Craig Haynes
CAPA: Anne Prussing
Linda Barnhart

2. Outcome of the Resolutions brought before the LAUC Spring Assembly
#1 LAUC should officially request the the University administration
add three more steps to the Librarian Rank (steps VI, VII, and VIII)

--Passed unanimously

#2 LAUC shall develop criteria for the above named steps, such that
the top step would be kept for those librarians whose achievements are
regarded as distinguished

--Passed, 19 yes, 8 no

#3 LAUC will charge a committee to prepare a report providing
recommendations for restructuring the Librarian salary scale

--Passed, 25 yes, 2 no, 1 ab

#4 LAUC (until steps are added to the Librarian Rank) will consider
Librarian V as a normal merit step--Not passed, 8 yes, 19 no.

3. Results of this year's Librarian reviews--
23 files (1 Assistant Lib, 10 Associate Lib, and 12 Librarian)
files were reviewed. There were 4 promotions, 17 merit increases,
and 3 librarians were accorded career status.

4. Review of CAPA Issues for 1997/1998 Review Cycle--
D. Talbot distributed a 3 page background document.

A. Review Calendar. New review cycle dates have worked
well but CAPA suggests revision for more realizable

B. Notification to Ad Hoc Comittees from CAPA. The
membership agreed that CAPA notify the Ad Hoc
committee chairs twice during the review
process--once when CAPA forwards its recommendation
to the UL and again when the final outcome has been
decided. Both times, it was recommended, the
notification will be on email.

C. Additional Documentation. CAPA recommended that LHR
should add wording to the section pertaining to
Additional Documentation. The question was
asked--where does the name come up. It was pointed
out that either the Review Initiator and the
candidate can be asked or informed. The candidate
gets to see the redacted text of the additional
documentation if they desire.

D. Redacted Letters. Presented as an FYI. Only 15-20% ask
for letters. The checklist can be used as a
reminder that the candidate can request the letters
at any time during the review process.

E. Evidence of Management Competency. There was a
discussion of how the candidate's supervisory skills
should be addressed. K. Lucas pointed out that there
is a difference between supervision and management.
The supervisor has a different perspective than those
being managed. The question for the membership was
whether letters from staff/librarians supervised
should be included if this is a major segment of the
candidate's responsibilities. There was general
agreement that either staff or librarians could
contribute, although so far this has not been done
evenly throughout the files. D. Talbot said that
CAPA wants to make sure the candidate's file is well
rounded. A. Prussing noted that stipends are based on
position, not competency.

F. Librarian IV to V. Past practice is providing
documentation in this case was for the candidate to
review only the past 3 years, leaving it up to the
Review Initiator to make the case for the
"distinguished career history." The question
before the membership is whether the candidate
should be more involved rather than just proving
what has been accomplished between Levels 4 and 5.
It was agreed that the candidate should do a career
review as appropriate. Also, should the entire
career history (encompassing service outside of
UCSD) be included in the documentation, or just
service at UCSD. P. Mirsky said yes, but it does
also depend the level at which the librarian comes
in to the system.

Review process in general-- B. Slater brought up the idea of the
review going from the Review Initiator to the University Librarian.
This would put a lot of emphasis on the Review Initiator. K. Cargille
suggested that CAPA could look at the reviews and could say, "We
agree". P. Mirsky said that if this occured she would be concerned
about the lack of peer perspective. B. Slater suggested that we take
time to think about it and that we would discuss it as an agenda item
this fall.

5. Stipends Process.
The administration felt that the decision as to whether to award
stipends was a Cabinet decision. M. Harden provided documentation on
what the other campuses were doing and the costs. UCSD will award
$250 a month to each of nine department heads. This is similar to the
other campuses, with the exception of UCLA, which is following the
academic model (where the stipend is dependent on the size of the
department's budget). Very little discussion followed, as it was felt
to be a "done deal."