Skip to main content

April 1994 Minutes

Minutes April 26, 1994
Geisel Room 2:30 p.m.
Present: L. Abrams, P. Brueggeman, K. Cargille, L. Claassen, R.
Coates, K. Creely, J. Donovan, S. Galloway, J. Hanson, C. Haynes,
C. Hightower, M. Horres, C. Jahns, E. Kanter, R. Lindemann, K. Lo,
K. Lucas, A. Perez, A. Prussing (Chair), B. Renford, E. Robinson,
C. Stave, T. Weintraub, B. Westbrook.

Report of LAUC-SD Nominating Committee
K. Lucas (committee chair) distributed a copy of the 1993/94
LAUC-SD roster and a copy of the Tentative Slate for 1994/95
elected and voluntary positions. K. Lucas proposed that, to stay
within the calendar (June 1 election), rather than presenting the
slate at a later membership meeting, that this tentative slate be
presented today and the floor be opened for nominations, in keeping
with the LAUC-SD Bylaws, and that a final slate be distributed to
the membership prior to elections without holding another
membership meeting. Those in attendance approved this proposal,
and nominations were opened. There being none, and with no
candidate for Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect yet on the slate, A. Prussing
noted that lack of interest in running for that position is a
serious problem. K. Lucas will continue to seek candidates for
that position in hopes of filling it before elections are held.

Report of CAPA Progress to Date
B. Renford (chair) offered a statistical report of CAPA's
progress this year. Twenty-six librarians' files were originally
listed for review, of which two were mooted by resignations. Two
of these remain under review, and three are with ad hoc committees.
"Blue Letter Day" has been scheduled for May 16, at which time as
many decision letters as are ready will be delivered. Keeping to
one date for all decision letters being posted is a valued goal of
CAPA this year since it is hoped that anxiety and confusion among
those awaiting decisions will be reduced. J. Hanson indicated that
funding for merit increases and salary restorations remain hoped
for but is not yet assured.

Report of LAUC-SD Gopher Progress to Date
E. Kanter presented draft menus to show the proposed
organization of the LAUC segment for InfoPath. This structure
accommodates areas for local documents, such as minutes, bylaws and
rosters, and statewide documents, such as bylaws, position papers,
and committee reports. The first priority will be to load readily
available online resources; loading other documents that are not
yet machine-readable remains problematic and requires further

Follow-up Report on LAUC Recruitment Lunches with Interviewees
A. Prussing reiterated the general concepts and principles
surrounding recruitment lunches. The focus for these should be
general and conversation should concern librarian collegiality,
professional development, and matters of local interest separate
from specific departmental or duties-related matters. It is
desirable that LAUC participants be disassociated from the
recruiting department/unit, although departmental affiliation will
sometimes be unavoidable and should not be ruled out absolutely.

Discussion for Division Response: Proposed revised Academic
Personnel Manual Section 615
A. Prussing led a discussion concerning the document "Proposed
Revised Academic Personnel Manual Section 615 -- Salary Increases"
(February 16, 1994) in response to J. Wilson's call for comments on
the proposal. Copies of the draft were distributed to those in
attendance. The major change focuses on authorizing salary
increases ONLY after approval of the UC budget by the Governor and
the formal adoption of the UC budget by the Regents, even though
the "normal" effective date shall be July 1.

- The term "normal" seems to have ambiguous meaning that might
be clarified.
- Loss of reference to retroactive compensation is concerning,
and there was clear consensus that language addressing
retroactive possibilities be inserted.

Discussion for Division Response: Draft LAUC Position Paper No. 6
A. Prussing led a discussion concerning this Berkeley based
draft, which highlights the need for flexibility at review time in
response to increased reassignment of duties and responsibilities
during the recent past.

- Is this paper responding too much to recent crises rather than
to broad, ongoing concerns that position papers ought to
- Flexibility has always been a consideration. What
specifically does this document contribute to help CAPA in
interpreting or evaluating a review file? The language of
this draft is too vague to provide much help.
- Could this draft ultimately be used as an argument against
criteria 2-4? Could others argue that support for
professional development should diminish if that facet of
review lacks consequence?
- In summary, response to the draft reflected hesitancy and
inadvisability--it seems to bring no added value to the review

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Lindemann, Secretary