Tuesday, October 2, 2001
Charles E. Young Research Library, Administrative Conference Room 

Present: Maureen Russell (chair), Elaine Adams, Adrienne Adan, Ellen Broidy, Valerie Bross (recorder), Deborah Costa, Leon Ferder, Miki Goral, Elaine Graham, Esther Grassian, Ruby Gutierrez, Catherine Lee, Eudora Loh,  Michael Oppenheim, Rita Scherrei, Lise Snyder, Hannah Walker 

Handouts: agenda; draft minutes for 8/20, 8/22, 9/6; sample CALL page; Electronic resources database (ERDb) timeline; draft letter

Note: Due to scheduling needs, some items were discussed out of order. The actual order of discussion was: 1, 6a., 2, 6b, 3, 4, 6c, 7

1. CALL TO ORDER 

Maureen Russell called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

2.  SECRETARY'S REPORT
• August 20, 2001 minutes: motion to approve: Lise Snyder; seconded: Ruby Gutierrez; approved 
• August 22, 2001 minutes: motion to approve: Elaine Adams; seconded: Ruby Gutierrez; approved
• September 6, 2001 minutes: Motion to approve: Ellen Broidy; seconded: Debe Costa; approved with corrections

 
3. CHAIR'S REPORT
• Committees: Appointments have been completed for all committees except the Peer Review Documentation Committee.
• Upcoming events: Interviews for Head of Library Human Resources will be taking place in October (16, 18, 30) and on November 1. An AdCon workshop on Motivating Employees has been scheduled for October 12.

 
4. VICE CHAIR'S REPORT
• Maureen discussed the status of the past year's Peer Review cycle.

 
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS: No reports

 
6. NEW BUSINESS
1. Topic: Revision of CALLs (Rita Scherrei)

For peer review, librarians are covered either by the bargaining contract--the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)--or by the Academic Personnel Manual (APM). In the past, the CALL was the same for both covered librarians (i.e., covered by the contract) and uncovered librarians (i.e., covered by the APM). However, because the CALL now references the MOU for covered librarians and the APM for exempt librarians, two separate CALLs are needed. 

To some, this may seem more of a formal change than a substantive one, since the CALL itself applies to both groups. And right now, in terms of evaluation and advancement, librarians are all peers; there are no differences in the requirements for the two groups.

But the shift from a single CALL to two CALLs represents a cultural change. Of course, in a way, there already was a separation between librarians in management and other librarians; but this could be perceived as further dividing librarians into two groups.

[Rita Scherrei shared a sample page to illustrate how references to the Memorandum of Understanding  would appear in a typical document. Then, Maureen asked for questions and comments.]

Q: This came up at the Statewide LAUC meeting on Aug. 17. My biggest concern about the split into two CALLs is that this will further divide people.
RS: This is true, it's a shift. The conditions are subject to bargaining--so we cannot change things without going to Bargaining.

Q: What are other campuses doing [about the CALL]?
RS: The general consensus reached by UC Personnel directors was that we need to develop two separate CALLS. [As an exception,] UCSB does intend to have one single document.

Q: I thought that it was up to local LAUCs to change procedures?
RS: Yes, to some extent, but they cannot make substantive changes without administrative approval. For example, the local LAUC cannot decide to omit parts of the Peer Review Process. [Having said that,] we do want to protect local autonomy as much as possible. We do not necessarily want the exact same procedure as is at other campuses; and we have got people on this campus that will protect that.

Q1: If there was a change to the non-represented group such as a different salary scale, or if people in the non-represented group wanted something in the APM that governed them, what would be the process for change?
Q2: If there is a change to the CALL for non-represented librarians, how would this occur?
RS: The proposed change would go to the president, who would put out a request for comment to various groups, among them, LAUC. So, LAUC would have a chance to comment.

Q: Under the MOU and the APM, could non-represented librarians be reviewed according to another system, e.g., by AULS at other campuses?
RS: [Repeated the change process summarized above]. If that started to happen, then the groups would separate quite a bit.

RS: Did you know we only have 12 non-represented librarians at UCLA? What happened is that the management group has changed over time; and the number of non-represented librarians has decreased.

Conclusion: Maureen thanked Rita Scherrei for coming. When the CALLs are ready, Maureen will send out the appropriate message on LAUC-talk.
 

2. Topic: LAUC-LA position statement on ERDb

Elaine Adams, Dora Loh, Catherine Lee, David Cappoli, and Elaine Graham prepared two documents: (1) a time line of events leading up to ERDb; and (2) a draft LAUC-LA position statement. Maureen thanked the group for its efforts, and opened the floor to discussion. A lively debate ensued. Based on the suggestions received, Elaine Adams will revise the draft and re-issue it for comment.

Conclusion: The group set a target of next week (week of Oct. 8) to complete the letter, which will be sent to the UL, with copies to the AULs.  Maureen will seek a meeting with the UL to discuss concerns.
 

3. Campus Reports Assignments

LAUC Berkeley: Ruby Gutierrez
LAUC Davis: Debe Costa
LAUC Irvine: Ellen Broidy
LAUC San Francisco: Michael Oppenheim
LAUC Santa Barbara: Adrienne Adan
LAUC Riverside: Lise Snyder
LAUC Santa Cruz: Ruby Gutierrez
LAUC San Diego: Elaine Adams


7. NEXT MEETING / ADJOURNMENT 

The next monthly LAUC meeting is scheduled for November 6 , 2001.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:21 pm.