Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 1:00-3:00 p.m.

1. Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.

2. Agenda review and general announcements

Ellen announced that Dora will be unable to attend the May 13^th LAUC Statewide Spring Assembly. Orchid volunteered to attend in her absence.

Ellen informed the Board that Michael Oppenheim is on leave due to an illness.    

3. Secretary's report

   - Review and approval of the January 20, 2004 Executive Board minutes

The minutes from the Jan. 20^th meeting were approved with corrections.

4. Vice-chair's report

Janet reported that forty-one actions will be reviewed this year. The UL has granted six deferrals.

Janet reported that she has yet to hear from Pat Hawthorne on extension of the CALL calendar.      

Janet reported on her February 11^th meeting with Pat Hawthorne:  

·         At Janet's request, Pat has forwarded three evaluation/recommendation peer review templates to the LAUC-LA listserv.

·         Pat has yet to send out a revised peer review documentation checklist.

·         LIS will place a PC and printer in the peer review room. Janet is reviewing the HR templates that will be available on the PC. She requested that floppies and Internet access be made available.

Janet will meet again with Pat Hawthorne on February 23^rd to discuss the Feb. 25^th peer review training session.

5. Chair's report

   - LAUC State Executive Board conference call (2.9.04)

Ellen reported that UC Riverside did not give a round robin report because it has submitted its report to the UL for approval prior to submitting it to the Executive Board.

Progress reports of standing committees were due on February 15th:  

·         Chuck Wilson reported from the Awards Committee that the survey on the travel award revealed overwhelming support for the award.

·         The Committee on Committees, Rules and Jurisdictions did a wonderful job reviewing Merced's by-laws and will be looking at revisions to Berkeley's by-laws.

·         The Committee on Library Plans and Policies is not yet active. They will receive an action plan by February 20^th.

·         The Committee on Professional Governance has sent out a survey.

·         The Committee on Research and Professional Development has received six research proposals. The Committee has discussed with Terry Huwe (LAUC VP) the possibility of targeting specific research areas (e.g., information literacy) in future calls for research proposals.  

·         The Nominating Committee has one candidate for VP and one candidate for Secretary.  They are continuing to seek candidates in order to have a full slate.

·         Position Paper Review Task Force. Linda Kennedy is working on language that reaffirms the content of position papers while showing that they represent snapshots in time. Linda Kennedy and Deborah Turner are discussing a timeline for a new charge.

Ellen also reported that Brian Schottlaender has suggested ULs could work collaboratively with LAUC to address the question of the distinguished step. Questions arose concerning the makeup and charge of a task force: would the task force look at the placement of the distinguished step, at the criteria for the distinguished step, or both? The Statewide Executive Board was in favor of a charge that is as inclusive as possible.

   - Senate Committee on Library meeting

Ellen reported that the UC Academic Senate University Committee on Library met on February 11^th with the ULs. ULs are sending comments on the Strategic Planning for Libraries and Scholarly Information document to the Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC).  

   - UCOL agenda

On January 27^th the UCLA Committee on Library met. Items on the agenda:

·         The possibility of a meeting with the Committee on Academic Personnel to discuss how the Committee should assess publications appearing in alternate venues.

·         NRLF and SRLF as repositories of critical materials.

·         The Elsevier repository and JSTOR print archives.

·         Reports by Gary E. Strong on the Elsevier contract and the budget sent out by ExComm.

Ellen also reported that a template is now available, from the Information for Faculty on the State of the Library Collections web page, for faculty to use when negotiating contracts (available at http://www.createchange.org/faculty/issues/controlling.html).

6. Committee reports

   - Committee on Library Plans and Policies

Nothing to report.

   - Committee on Professional Governance

The committee met on February 12^th and began revision of the Peer Review Manual.

Alan asked for clarification on the status of the CALL mounted on the LHR web site. Janet responded that the Committee to Review the CALL and LHR are responsible for revisions, and that the Committee was not given the opportunity to review the revised CALL. She also noted that there is no indication that the document is a draft.   

The Committee will meet again on March 5^th.

   - Committee on Research and Professional Development

The Committee will meet on February 24^th to review six proposals, including one from UCLA. 

New(ish) business

7. Task Force on Peer Review

   - strategies for soliciting input from membership

Ellen reported that the Task Force membership has been set but not formally announced. Gary E. Strong will send appointment letters to all Task Force members.

Ellen noted that the current Task Force charge clearly calls for a revision of how peer review is conducted. Moving to a CAPA-type model would require a by-laws change, but it is unclear what would happen if membership were to vote down the change.

Ellen asked for strategies on soliciting input from membership. Suggestions included:

·         Make access to the Task Force's Groupware web site available to LAUC-LA members.

·         Have a Lunch with LAUC similar to the recent Peer Review discussion program.

·         Convene focus group meetings with Task Force members.

·         Develop a set of questions for the Task Force.

·         Due to short time frame, have a program to discuss big issues and use email to discuss small issues.

·         Allot time at Executive Board meetings.

The Executive Board discussed the Task Force charge and the peer review process at UCLA and the other UC campuses. The Board agreed that the charge must be reviewed by the Task Force and that Task Force members should have active and frequent communication with LAUC-LA membership in order to make the process work for all.

In discussing the goals of a new peer review system, Ellen stated that the system should honor and preserve the academic status of UCLA's librarians. 

8. Setting future agenda

This item was not discussed.

9. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

George Wrenn

LAUC-LA Secretary