Skip to main content

September 2001 Minutes

Membership Meeting

September 18, 2001
2-4 p.m.
Seuss Room, Geisel Library


Present: L. Barnhart, M.L. Bergstrom, P. Brueggeman, A. Butros, K. Calkins, K. Cargille, H. Colson, E. Cowell, B. Culbertson, T. Dearie, S. Deng, S. Dunlap, A. Gold, J. Hanson, C. Haynes, D. Kegel, C. Keil, S. Lawson, S. Lawson, K. Lucas, J. Page, A. Perez (secretary), J. Reiswig (chair), B. Schottlaender, B. Slater, N. Stimson, D. Talbot, A. Tarango, D. Tweedy, E. Valdez, B. Westbrook, J. Williams, V. Williamson, J. Yang, M. Young


J. Reiswig thanked last year's Executive Board for all their hard work and apologized for scheduling this first membership meeting on Rosh Hashanah.

Introduction of New Members

  • M. Bergstrom introduced Marlo Maldonado Young, our National Library of Medicine Fellow. She will be at the Biomedical Library for a year.
  • L. Barnhart introduced two new members to the Catalog Department: Shi Deng, Head of CJK, and Adolfo Tarango, Head of DISC. One more hire is underway.

LAUC-SD Annual Contributions

A. Perez called for the annual LAUC-SD contributions of $10.00 by October 1st.

Transition to new LAUC Office

The new LAUC Office is located in room 722 (former study carrel) in Geisel. The key to the office is located at the SSHL Circulation Desk. H. Colson met with John Elmore to discuss the transition from the old office to the new. Single-faced shelving and a new lateral file cabinet will be placed in the new office. H. Colson suggested that we form a small task force to weed the old office. The Executive Board has decided that the Research and Professional Development Committee (R&PD) should handle the disposition of back runs of LAUC journals. Issues not wanted should be offered to the library to fill in gaps. Issues not needed by the library will be offered to LAUC-SD members.

CAPA Annual Report

CAPA's Annual Report was distributed in its entirety to the membership via email prior to the meeting. Below is a summary of the debriefing issues discussed at the meeting, along with recommendations and items for action.

A. Addressing the career history of Distinguished step files.

DECISION: The membership agreed that additional language should be added to the Department Head's section regarding this action.

ACTION: CAPA will draft language and will present it at the next membership meeting.

B. Addressing the entire career history for promotion from Assoc. to Librarian.

Discussion points and clarifications:
It was agreed that when the APM and the ARPM refer to promotions, this applies to the promotion of assistant to associate and associate to librarian. Current practice provides for access to the back files of candidates being recommended for either of these personnel actions to Ad Hocs and CAPA as stipulated in the ARPM.

It was pointed out that addressing the entire career history of a promotion from associate to librarian is covered in Position Paper No. 1 (PP1). However, PP1 does not address the entire career history issue of the promotion from assistant to associate.

A portion of the discussion centered on the issue of "who" should address the entire career history. There was some agreement that the burden to provide evidence to support this personnel action is on the candidate. Thus, in the case of a promotion from associate to librarian, the candidate should supply evidence from their career history.

However, members cautioned against providing long narratives. The bullet-style format for addressing the career history was suggested. This format follows the streamlined format previously adopted by LAUC-SD.

ACTION: CAPA will draft a recommendation and present at the next membership meeting.

C. Goals

For some departments and candidates, the goals process and the review process are on and have been on separate tracks. For other departments and candidates, goals are not consistently drafted. The problem centers on the fact that a goals process is detailed in the ARPM. If the goals process is on a separate track, it probably should not be included in the review procedures. If it is a part of the review procedures, then it should be integrated into the self-review of the candidate and subsequently the review of the review initiator.

The discussion yielded various opinions in and around this basic issue, but no clear consensus was reached. It was suggested that a task force convene to discuss the issue and make a recommendation to LAUC-SD.

ACTION/RECOMMENDATION Therefore, CAPA recommends that the incoming CAPA chair coordinate the creation of a task force to re-examine the goals issue and that a recommendation to LAUC-SD be presented as soon as possible.

D. Shared Decision Making

RECOMMENDATION: The Review Initiator should address SDM.

ACTION: Approved. No further action required.

E. Timely notification of final action.

Some candidates were not notified of the final UL action within 6 months of the first review action.

RECOMMENDATION: Candidates should be notified of the final UL action within the specified period. Should a candidate's file be delayed, LHR should communicate with the Review Initiator to indicate that the file will be delayed.

Change language of the ARPM to be consonant with the MOU. The MOU says 9 months, the APM and subsequently the ARPM states 6 months.

ACTION: LHR will follow-up to make sure final actions are sent out or late letters. The update of the language shall be referred to Statewide LAUC Professional Governance Committee because a change in the APM is required.

F. Distinguished Step Criteria

RECOMMENDATION: In view of the survey and other activities on this item at the Statewide level, CAPA recommends no change.

ACTION: Upon completion of the statewide survey, LAUC-SD Chair, J. Reiswig will convene a task force to begin the process of developing local distinguished step criteria.

G. Department Head or Review Initiator?

For a significant number of candidates, the Review Initiator is not the Department Head. ARPM language is not clear and consistent and in some cases means the Review Initiator, but uses Department Head or vice versa.

RECOMMENDATION: Clean-up the ARPM and provide clarity.

ACTION: CAPA will review the ARPM and clarify sections where confusion might occur.

LHR Update

  • Maria Din will be the back-up person for academic reviews when Debra Ambrose is absent.
  • LAUC-SD is not required to be evaluated on the UCSD Standards.
  • Ad Hoc committees will be notified of actions.
  • Maria will send notification to "ALL" regarding promotions, career status, and distinguished step actions.
  • LHR will notify the Review Initiator (RI) regarding delays in receiving letters from referees.
  • LHR will hold an orientation workshop for review initiators, candidates and CAPA on October 24th and early November in the Seuss Room.


Sam Dunlap (chair), Amy Butros, Dawn Talbot, and Duffy Tweedy.

LAUC Transition Meeting (J. Reiswig)

  • LAUC is in the "red" by several thousand dollars related to travel costs.
  • Several errors were found in the Bylaws, therefore, additional revisions are needed.
  • D. Murphy, new LAUC President, will pursue a list of librarians' publications.
  • Fall Assembly is scheduled for November 16, 2001 at UC Davis. A program event will be attached to it: "maintaining the library as a place." Spring Assembly in mid-May at UCLA.
  • Many recruitments are in process, especially at the department head and AUL level.

LAUC Statewide Professional Governance Meeting (J. Reiswig)

  • The committee will write a response to the University Librarians regarding ways they can help us achieve criteria 2-4. Examples are formal sabbaticals and mentoring.
  • There was a lack of consensus on the LAUC Statewide Position Paper #1. Another survey will be distributed on the "distinguished step" concept.
  • The committee did reach consensus on not to bifurcate represented and non-represented librarians.

Other Issues: Travel Expenses

The membership had questions/comments regarding travel expenses and problems with reimbursement. LAUC statewide funding is issued from the Office of the President. We were allocated the same amount as last year. K. Lucas commented that it was two years ago she noticed an increase in committees and therefore, an increase in LAUC members on statewide committees. LAUC-SD should address the issue of allocating enough money to cover travel expenses to the UL.

Social and R&PD events this year

The membership is in favor of continuing the pizza parties. We have two new librarians to welcome. A retirement party announcement is forthcoming.

The membership is in favor of continuing the R&PD "Hot Talks" events as well as providing a session about library school for staff and students.