LAUC-LA Executive Board Meeting Minutes: 03-06

LAUC-LA Home | Meeting Minutes | 03-06 (February 18, 2003)

LAUC-LA Executive Board Meeting 03-06

Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Charles E. Young Research Library, Administrative Conference Room

Present: Michael Oppenheim (Chair), Ellen Broidy, David Cappoli, Beth Feinberg (Recorder), David Gilbert, Ruby Gutierrez, Maureen Russell, Ken Wade, Chuck Wilson.

Guests: Janice Koyama, Julie Kwan, Louise Ratliff, Diane Childs

1. CALL TO ORDER

Meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m.

2. SECRETARY’S REPORT

Minutes from January 21, 2003 were approved.

3. CHAIR’S REPORT

Michael Oppenheim listed the following upcoming events:

February 26, Committee on Plans and Policies will host a Lunch with LAUC discussing Semesters vs. Quarters.
March 11, the Nominating Committee will host a Lunch with LAUC; Lise Snyder will lead a panel discussion on running for LAUC-LA offices.
In April, there will be a Lunch with LAUC discussion on recommendations of the Statewide Professional Governance Committee.
The Program Committee hoped to show the “Patriot Act” video, but it is three hours long. LHR has the video and anyone is welcome to borrow it.

4. VICE-CHAIR’S REPORT

Peer review files are due to the AULs February 24^th, so the committee will be in full swing in the Spring. The Committee has handled some appointments as they occur.

5. PAST CHAIR’S REPORT

Maureen Russell attended the Senate Committee on Library meeting, January 28^th, as Michael was in Philadelphia for the ALA conference. Janice Koyama spoke to the Committee about Orion2, the LibQual survey, the budget, and serial cancellations. Eleanor Mitchell spoke on information literacy. Maureen emphasized that this Committee is very interested in Library matters.

6. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Committee on Professional Governance – David Gilbert

Michael Oppenheim charged the committee to look at ideas and/or talking points for a membership-wide discussion on the 2001 Statewide recommendations in final report, which is posted at the LAUC Web site, at: www.ucop.edu/lauc/pg/annual01-02.html

Research and Professional Development – Chuck Wilson

The Committee will meet this afternoon to review the statewide grant proposals; our recommendations to the Statewide RPD Committee are due February 24th. About twenty people attended the RPD funding program on February 10^th. Chuck noted that there were not a lot of statewide proposals this year. Ellen Broidy commented that librarians on all campuses may be too overwhelmed to take on more, since we are so short on personnel.

Committee on Library Plans and Policies – David Cappoli; guest, Julie Kwan

Semesters vs. Quarters

The issue came up in September 2001, and November 1, 2002 the task force submitted its report, available at www.senate.ucla.edu/calendar. Although the Chancellor would like the Senate opinion on what best serves the University’s mission, the Chancellor will make the final decision. The Chancellor wants a curriculum review even if we stay on the quarter system. The report does not make recommendations, but lists the pros and cons of each system.

Ellen commented that, from what she’s read, opinion at Berkeley is split and the transition is still not smooth. She recommended staying with something that works.

The process has gone far, however, and we need to prepare ourselves for a possible change. The Regents do have the final say. 2007-8 would be the earliest this could be implemented. UCLA Extension classes would stay on the quarter system. Ellen suggested that the Admin have an open meeting on the issue, Michael asked if he should invite ExComm to our LAUC-LA program. The group agreed that it would be a good idea to invite them. Additionally, there is a campus-wide coordinating team, which at this point does not have library representation. We need someone either from LAUC or the Library on the team.

7. JANICE KOYAMA

Michael Oppenheim welcomed Janice to the meeting and invited her and the rest of ExComm to attend the LAUC-LA discussion on Semesters vs. Quarters. Janice graciously accepted the invitation.

She then discussed the following topics:

UL search –

Sarah Michalak got a counter-offer from Utah and chose to stay. The Chancellor and EVC are taking the next few days to consider their options. Options include: 1) consider the other two candidates who have already interviewed, 2) consider semi-finalists from this past round of interviews, 3) repost the position.

Janice questioned whether re-opening the position would bring new candidates, as the pool for this position is so small. Janice added that this is ultimately Murphy Hall’s decision, as they are the hiring agent. She also commented that in the last five years there have been more ARL Directors appointed than in the past twenty.

Budget –

AdCon and ExComm have been working on a set of budget principles, and all staff will be asked for brainstorming ideas. Janice will send out an email February 19^th to all staff, which will include the principles and an online form to submit budget ideas.

The budget cut for the remaining part of this fiscal year is 1.7%, and will be at least 5% for next year. It could be more than 5%, depending on the Governor’s budget, which will be released in September. We will not wait to start strategic planning.

Although the Library hopes to stave off layoffs, that does not mean there will not be a reduction in staff; all open positions are frozen and are up for review. There is the possibility of staff reassignment, and everyone needs to be flexible. TRIP (Temporary Reduction in Pay) would be a system-wide decision, but is highly unlikely; net savings from this measure are not high and are only temporary in nature.

Ellen Broidy asked if these budget cuts are more severe than 1992-3. Janice thought not, but rather there has been a cumulative effect from each round of cuts over the past ten years. ExComm has decided that this round of cuts will not be taken just from staff; the collection and SRLF budgets will be affected.

8. Librarian of the Year Award

Jan Goldsmith and Jenny Lentz are co-chairs of the Committee, and have investigated two funding scenarios for the award. The first involves LAUC-LA members donating funds to the award. The second option involves awarding the recipient extra professional development funds, perhaps $250; Pat Hawthorne approved use of the extra funding from the LAUC account. The third option is to not have a cash award. The membership will be able to vote their preference.

There are advantages and disadvantages for each option. With the first option, 1) the recipient would receive a cash prize, but 2) it may be difficult to raise a consistent amount of money, and 3) members may not appreciate being solicited for funds. Ellen Broidy noted that this Committee could turn into a fundraising group if this option is taken, and this is not its main charge.

With the second option, 1) we would have a consistent award, 2) the Committee would not be involved in fundraising, and 3) it honors professional achievements. On the other hand, 1) not all recipients travel, and 2) some departments (i.e. Law) receive more development funds than others, so this award would not make a difference to such recipients.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Beth Feinberg

LAUC-LA Secretary

Updated September 15, 2005
Contact LAUC-LA Webmaster