Tuesday, February 5, 2002 
Charles E. Young Research Library, Administrative Conference Room 

Present: Maureen Russell (chair), Elaine Adams, Adrienne Adan, Ellen Broidy, Valerie Bross (recorder), Michael Oppenheim, Lise Snyder; guests: Rita Scherrei, Gloria Werner; Jennifer Lentz, Jan Goldsmith, Miki Goral, Dora Loh 

1. CALL TO ORDER 

Maureen Russell called the meeting to order at 1:10 PM. 
 
2. LIBRARY POSITION POSTINGS (R. Scherrei) 
• Dora Loh: Library policy now calls for positions to be advertised at Assistant Librarian through Associate Librarian 3. This policy needs discussion: 
• If an internal candidate is higher than Associate Librarian 3 and if the candidate is successful, then the candidate's current salary would be affected. 
• We have not had salary caps in the past, unlike UC Davis; such caps could affect how the librarian series is administered. 
• Rita Scherrei: As background, here are three reasons and a story. First, when the Peer Review Coordinator read the annual report [http://www.library.ucla.edu/committees/laucla/01reports/01annreports_frm.html], it was noted that were only four assistant librarians out of 127 librarians in the series. Second, shortly thereafter, we received related budget news. For many years, incoming librarians came in at a rank below those who retired or left. That difference was used to pay for student assistants (GA).  In the 1990s,  following VERIPS, the pattern of hires changed. Many new hires came in at a level as high as or higher than the people who left. Because of the position levels in job announcements, junior people who might otherwise be interested were not applying. With benefits, this left less money in the budget for GA. Third, ExComm members were concerned about the need for diversity. So, for an array of reasons ExComm decided to post appropriate positions at Assistant Librarian through Associate Librarian III.  Advantages of this policy are: 
• To change the demographics 
• To save more money to support the library budget 
• To increase the possibility of diversity 
Disadvantages are: 
• Full librarians probably won't apply 
• Internal candidates who are interested in open positions may not be eligible to apply, even though they have the skills 
There may be ways around the last disadvantage. We could post positions within the library for two weeks without rank limitation. In that case, we would have a transfer situation. But one could not post the position [simulataneously] as well. 
We're saying that for this moment in time, the advantages in our current situation outweigh that one disadvantage. 
• Discussion: Lise Snyder pointed out that the range Assistant through Associate still places brand new librarians at a disadvantage, and suggested that positions could stop at the Assistant level. Dora Loh asked whether there would be a way to hire an excellent applicant outside the posted range. Rita Scherrei responded that off-scale salaries are possible, but generally undesirable and inequitable. (Though there are some exceptional situations where off-scale salaries are needed.) Miki Goral, Dora Loh, Ellen Broidy, and Rita Scherrei further discussed the possibility of internal transfers. Elaine Adams asked about the employment outlook. RS: We do not expect a huge wave of retirements for 5-6 years. At that point, we're looking at 8-10 retirements per year. 
• Maureen Russell thanked Rita Scherrei and Dora Loh for raising and responding to this issue. 
• Extended discussion (with G. Werner): LS returned to the issue of internal candidates and possible methods for allowing internal candidates to transfer to positions that might otherwise be announced with position caps. Conclusion: LAUC-LA will host a "Lunch with LAUC" on this issue; Committee on Plans and Policies will make recommendations (based on the Lunch with LAUC discussion) for consideration by AdCon 

 
3. COMMITTEE ON LAUC-LA DISTINGUISHED LIBRARIAN 
• Name: Jan presented recommendations from Ruby Bell-Gam to change the name of the award to conform with the name by which it is commonly known. Conclusion: Maureen will ask the Election committee to come up with wording to add to the Ballot, since the By-laws will need to be changed. 
• Funding 
• Discussion: J. Lentz surveyed the campuses; only Berkeley has a monetary award. Miki Goral provided historical background about the LAUC credit union account and the change in rules for use of LAUC funds. Steve Fry appointed a committee to look into an endowment, and discovered that the amount needed for an award of $500 is exorbitant; in addition UC would take 10%. The use of the word "distinguished" in the informal name paralleled faculty teaching awards. 
• Conclusion: The Board recommended that a survey be sent to the membership to determine (1) Should the award be given every year, or at most once a year, at the discretion of the committee? (2) Should the award be given only if money is available; or should the award be given regardless of money, to recognize exceptional contributions (as defined by the criteria)? Maureen Russell requested that the Committee on LAUC-LA Distinguished Librarian develop a poll that included the questions listed above as well as the following For consideration for next year's Distinguished Librarian Award  (2002/2003), LAUC-LA requests your assistance with the following questions: (1) Should the Distinguished Librarian award be include a monetary award? (2) Would you be willing to fund an endowment for $25,000 to support a monetary award? 
• Other aspects: Jan Goldsmith questioned whether the award must be given every year. Miki Goral raised the problem of process--the similarity between this and peer review process was never intended by the originators. Also, while general letters are solicited, how would, for example, student letters, be evaluated by the review committee? 

 
4. SECRETARY'S REPORT (V. Bross) 

January 8, 2002 minutes: tabled pending changes to the minutes 
 
5. CHAIR'S REPORT (M. RUSSELL) 
• M. Russell and G. Werner met re the Communication Task Force. Result: A final report should be ready for spring assembly in April 
• Web Pages: D. Cappoli will poll the membership to determine (a) what members use on the LAUC-LA page; and (b) what members would like to see added to the LAUC-LA page 
• Boutonnieres for new librarians: 
• Discussion: Lise Snyder noted that a number of people appear to be open to supporting the boutonnieres; and suggested that LAUC-LA ask the Program Committee to take it into account. M. Russell, Miki Goral, and Lise Snyder discussed whether LAUC-LA should have a treasurer. Conclusion: M. Russell will have signatures on the LAUC-LA credit union account updated. 

 
6. VICE CHAIR'S REPORT (M. OPPENHEIM): deferred to next meeting

 
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 
• Committee on Professional Development (A. Adan): The committee is reviewing proposals.

 
8. NEW BUSINESS 
• CAMPUS REPORTS ASSIGNMENTS 
• UCSB (A. Adan): UCSB has just revised its page, loaded some wonderful links.

 

 

9. GLORIA WERNER: Letter from D. Murphy to UL Advisory Group: 
• Maureen Russell gave some background for this letter. Following revision of the Librarian Series, questions arose regarding the Distinguished Step. (1) Should there be a distinguished step? (2) Could the DS be awarded as a floating award, to be sought when librarians at a certain minimum rank feel they have achieved something that meets the criteria? The Chair of LAUC-Statewide has asked to meet with the ULs to discuss this issue. 
• Discussion: R. Lawrence polled the membership last spring; reported results at the following assembly. Overall, members felt that a distinguished designation is important, but should not necessarily be tied to a particular step. Some members thought money (possibly off-salary) should be attached to achievement of the distinguished designation. Others suggested that additional funds for professional development could be awarded with  the distinguished designation. M.R.: Of the full librarians under the old series, 13 had distinguished status. These people won't have to go through the review again. But from now on, librarians will need to have or apply for distinguished librarian status when moving from Librarian/step 5 to Librarian/step 6. 

10. NEXT MEETING / ADJOURNMENT 

The next meeting will be held March 5, 2001. 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm..