LAUC-LA Executive Board 06-09
Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 1:00- 3:00 p.m.
Biomed Library Instructional/Meeting Room

Present: Keri Botello, Janet Carter , Debe Costa (Chair), Kris Kasianovitz, Cynthia Lewis (Recorder) , Diane Mizrachi, Hannah Walker,   Absent: Aura Lippincott Maureen Russell , Ken Wade 

1. Call to order

 The meeting was called to order at 1:12 p.m.

 2. Agenda review and announcements

 No further agenda items.

 3. Secretary’s Report

-Approved April 18, 2006 Executive Board minutes

The minutes of the May 16 th, 2006 Executive Board meetings were approved.

 4. Chair’s Report (Costa)

 LAUC Spring General Assembly

The LAUC Spring General Assembly went very well. UCLA Librarians Janet Carter, Hannah Walker and Angela Riggio all gave presentations. Catherine Candee, Director, Publishing and Strategic Initiatives, CDL, spoke on Institutional Repositories and the UC Libraries. Debe thanked everyone for a great Assembly. For more on the recent Spring Assembly, including presentations, please see: http://www.library.ucla.edu/committees/laucla/about/assemblies/springassembly/2006/index.htm .

The LAUC Executive Board was asked to examine the question of should we have 2 LAUC Assemblies each year. Each Assembly ends up being fairly costly so the question needs to be addressed.

Janet indicated that she would hate for LAUC to drop one of the Assemblies. The discussion continued - meetings are very helpful for networking; and it provides everyone an opportunity to put names with faces. Furthermore, if LAUC was to move to having one Assembly per year, then it would need to be 2 days anyhow, so how much would that save in the long run. In addition, having 2 Assemblies a year provides more momentum to keep projects going. Having 2 Assemblies is not in the LAUC bylaws. If there isn’t any pressing business, then an Assembly can be called off. Currently, there are systemwide SOPAG and UL issues under discussion. In order to resolve these issues, there needs to be cross campus discussion. In addition, the General Assembly is the only forum where librarians can speak from the floor. That is not something that should be diminished. Thus, the LAUC-LA Executive Board recommends keeping the current 2 General Assembly model.

Election Results

The results from both the LAUC statewide and LAUC-LA elections are in. Debe needs to contact all the candidates first, and then she will post the results to LAUCtalk.

5. Statewide Representatives’ Report - LAUC 2006 Spring Assembly (Kasianovitz and Carter)

 (Thanks very much to Kris and Aura for providing the following notes. - cl; note from Webmaster--all available presentations from the Assembly are posted on the LAUC Spring Assembly website.)

LAUC Assembly, June 1, 2006
1 . Opening remarks from Gary Strong

2 . Announcements

3. a. Secretary’s report

Ballots due 6/7

Results on 6/14

b. Roll Call

4 . President’s report

Discussed representatives that LAUC has on UL statewide taskforces and groups. Acknowledged the importance of the LAUC communication role of these individuals. Important reports have come out from these groups, including the BSTF report.

Feels that campus discussion was so intense about the BSTF report were so intense that felt that LAUC members had their perspectives well-represented. She feels that there was a good level of consensus on report. Also acknowledged the Instructional roles taskforce.

Noted that there are volunteer opportunities for UC-campus wide groups.

5. Myron Okada, UCOP Academic personnel

State budget – lots of cooperation, so expect a state budget on time. State revenue stream is overflowing (+7 billion). UC is operating under the compact – 2nd of 5 year agreement.

Funding academic merits on 7/1

3% salary increase figure (total merits, COLA, healthcare)

So 2% COLA in October.

Additional funding is required because of health costs increase. Where we are is the same as last year. On staff side, a .5 % equity increase.

Retirement

Regents want to keep funded 95-110%. When will contributions begin? No one knows. If they do want to fund at this level, will have to contribute sooner, not later. This would require a 16% increase. Has not heard that total 16% will need to be recouped in full any time soon.

Retirement redesign option

Tier 2 – non-defined benefit option (for newer employees). Option is being reviewed and studied.

Annuitant healthcare costs

Will have to account for costs. Currently a staggering amount, but doesn’t mean that university is considering doing away with it.

Management pay issues

3 major audit reports

- regent taskforce on transparency and accountability (focus on 32 highest level execs)

- state audit of senior management group (approx 200)

- internal audit (senior management group) – other compensation issues

Are there sufficient accountability controls in place. Regents are taking a bigger role in day to day.

Ongoing

Office of president – what is appropriate relationship to de-centralized campus? More or less decentralization?

Major internal initiatives over disclosure, accountability, etc.

Questions

.5% equity for whom? Staff. Budget office is trying to find ways to enhance lower paid employees of university

3% is for salary and benefits. Are working with a 2% range adjustment. Will be same money for healthcare increases. There will be increases – how will costs be allocated?

6. UC Advisory group reps.

Will discuss reports tomorrow at executive board meeting.

Janet Carter discussed Scholarly Communication Officers

Today is release of toolkits. Each campus will be asked to respond. Update on all 5 white papers. Accepted by academic council (not endorsed). Committee on Libraries is now Committee on Libraries and Scholarly Communication

Copyright policy proposal accepted.

7 . Standing committee reports

a. Nominations – Terry Hume

2 candidates

b. R&PD – Lise Snyder

5 submissions for uni-wide grants

3 awards made – all from Berkeley

Paul Atwood, William Bedaman, Marily Snow

There is money left over for next year.

Some issues

-revised documentation on requirements for fundees

- other documentation needs to be revised.

- discussion about product placed on open archives, LAUC archive, UCOP copies.

- site exists that shows all past grant recipients – ideas for improving this page (for ex, make it more a resource page for people considering applying).

- follow up with people who haven’t completed research

Discussion about what research guidelines mean? Should they be broadened? Or current language strengthened?

Question about whether this can cover prof. dev? Not as currently written. Mini-grant money could be used for this. That is within purview of local campus LAUC rules.

Encouraging people to apply – local programs? Documents on website?

8 . Ad Hoc Committee reports

a. Kari Lucas – instructional roles report

see report submitted.

- Evidence did not show that system-wide change is warranted (changes to APM)

- Peer review documentation needs to be clarified- varies campus to campus

- Review survey instrument

- Training and support (learning to be better teachers, where and how)

LAUC toolkit for librarians who want to teach? Can be daunting. Draft resolution of librarian/faculty partnerships (Academic senate) – perhaps use this as a platform (Esther suggested this).

Kari – job titles can hinder/help this. Right now instruction is clearly a subset of reference in the UCs. Too limiting to think this way (in terms of job titles). It can be addressed. Executive Board will discuss this.

b. Esther – Follow-up information on IRB Process. Esther talked about her IRB experience with the survey she helped conduct for the LAUC Instructional Roles of Librarians Ad Hoc Committee. She emphasized that if we want to do any kind of surveying or research with students, faculty, or even other librarians AND want to present or publish the results, we MUST get an IRB exemption. We should contact our campus Offices for the Protection of Research Subjects to find out policies, procedures, and certification. At UCLA, you take a 2 hour online training module and receive a certificate good for two years; this is necessary for those who are filling out IRB forms and working with test subjects. Handout: UCLA Claim of Exemption from IRB form – showed how easy it is to fill out exemption form.

9. Information Presentation – Terry Ryan, Bibliographic Services Task Force, next steps.

Terry gave a presentation that detailed the formation of the BSTF, the overall process of compiling the report, initial responses (both from UC and outside UC), initial UC responses and input, both surprising and not surprising; overall theme that we want to preserve our values, but are ok with changing our practices, but we figure out what are our “values” and “practices”.

Next Steps: SOPAG and the UL’s agreed to move forward, but at this time there are no details on what that will be. There are no action items at this time; this will be discussed at the next meeting in mid-June. There is agreement that this is transformational change; SOPAG and UL’s will need to determine how to allocate resources to support this. For detailed report on campus recommendations and priorities see: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/AnalysisResponses.pdf

Debe will ask Terry to have the powerpoint presentation posted.

For all BSTF documents and related information see:

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/ or http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/

10 . Program on Institutional Repositories and the UC Libraries

Jenny handed out a Group Discussion sheet for us to use for this portion of the program. However, due to lack of time, we were not able to break into groups and work on the handout, but Jenny encouraged us to use this handout to think about how issues related to scholarly communication are and will affect our jobs.

Catherine Candee, Director, Publishing and Strategic Initiatives

Update on eScholarship (powerpoint slides to be posted?)

-They will be surveying faculty to find out who is doing what kind of research and what their publishing habits are; determine how will this be captured by eScholarship; any work created by UC Faculty should be added to the repository.

-eScholarship is both a repository for publications and a place to make “editions” available (pre and post prints, working papers, technical reports, peer-reviewed articles, UC Press books, etc.) – i.e. a full-spectrum publishing platform. There has been a high adoption (approximately 28,000 articles are produced/year from UC campuses, approximately 12,000 are in eScholarship) and usage rate. See powerpoint for specific numbers.

-They are working on setting up a dissertation and thesis component of eScholarship. They already have several thousand loaded; but still need to work out details.

-The first peer-reviewed journal in eScholarship is Estuary and Water Science

-Working on building the UC Monographic Series back up; creating faculty review boards for this material.

Angela Riggio spoke about Scholarly Communication and the importance of educating faculty (and librarians who are publishing) about retaining copyright ownership. (powerpoint slides to be posted??)

Plug for the July 15 Workshop on Scholarly Communication, see: http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/scholarly.html

Hannah Walker talked about her experiences and milestones with marketing and getting various units on board with the eScholarship program at UCLA. She noted some methods that have worked for her – going to faculty meetings, presentations, continuous PR about eScholarship and persistence with departmental contacts.

Janet Carter gave us an update on various federal policies that exist and have an impact on faculty publishing output, especially if they received federal funding. She also talked about the availability of the Scholarly Communication Toolkit that will be available for us to use. And finally a quick update on HR109 S.2695 Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, which will bill would expand access to research output beyond NIH to such federal agencies as Agriculture, Energy, etc.

Wrap-up

As a take away, Jenny asked us to give some thought to the questions on the handout.

Meeting was adjourned.

Janet Carter gave an update on the Scholarly Communication Toolkits. During the first week of June, Janet sent information to LAUC President Jenny for distribution. The Scholarly Communication Officers are seeking feedback on whether the toolkits are helpful; is the content useful; are the toolkits helpful as librarians prepare to talk with faculty and societies about copyright issues, etc. Comments would be appreciated by July. Here at UCLA, CDC is looking at the toolkits. Should this be something that the LAUC-LA Committee on Library Plans and Policies might investigate - do a brown bag? Should the Programs Committee do something?

Esther’s presentation on the Internal Review Board process that she gave at the LAUC Spring Assembly might be helpful for a LAUC-LA Committee on Research and Professional Development program. Perhaps there could be a series of different discussion topics, e.g., statistics, etc. The Academic Senate Committee on the Library is also examining scholarly communication.

6. Vice-Chair’s Report (Russell)

No report

7. Committee Reports

Committee Report - Committee on Library Plans and Policies ( Walker)

No report.

Committee on Professional Governance (Wade)

Debe has a draft of Standing Rule #1, but we will table the discussion until next time.

Committee on Research and Professional Development (Mizrachi)

The committee selected one mini-grant proposal and notified the winner.

CAPA Update (Botello)

CAPA has received 32 of 33 files for this review cycle. One file is expected in July. CAPA has discussed, made recommendations, and forwarded 28 files to the University Librarian. Three files are in process with ad hoc committees, one file was forwarded to CAPA from an ad hoc committee yesterday. CAPA will consider an appointment packet this week.

CAPA informed LHR and the University Librarian in writing of our interpretation of the CALL regarding the procedures for evaluation of merit increase actions for UCLA librarians who previously attained “distinguished” status. As there is no change in rank, no ad hoc committee is required.

CAPA continues to review the process, and as suggested at the Spring Assembly, will hold a “brown bag” to share comments and receive feedback from librarians later in the summer.

Task Force on Mentoring ( Wilson for Goldsmith)

The Task Force’s midyear report is available at http://www.library.ucla.edu/committees/laucla/members/committees/reports/06reports/06midyear_reports.htm#mentor . The Task Force contacted other campuses and learned what other libraries are doing with regard to mentoring. Irvine and Santa Barbara have well developed programmatic and committee directed approaches to the process. Some ideas are to match new librarians with mentors with three plus years of experience and to have tours of all the campus libraries. The Task Force is also discussing LAUC’s role in addition to the role of Library Human Resources.

Debe added that the most recent topic at Management Council was succession planning. Rather than letting things fall where they may, it may be more practical to groom librarians and plan ahead. Pat Hawthorne and Jenifer Abramson presented the session. There are many factors to consider: generational differences, Library Assistant/MSO issues, do we look at critical positions or vacancies in general, etc. There may be a demand for individuals who are willing to take calculated risks, who are creative. The Library Strategic Plan will be helpful as we identify needs. The Management Council meeting then turned to brainstorming and dealing with questions about issues including retention and training.

Debe talked about how this is a natural tie in with the Task Force on Mentoring. We are concerned with retention of librarians as a whole. Having the ability to have two librarians overlap in a position for a period of time would be really helpful, but that typically isn’t allowed. LAUC-LA would like to move forward with mentoring so that librarians can meet colleagues from beyond their department/unit.

8. Other Business

At the beginning of the 2005-2006 Executive Board term, all the Executive Board members were asked to monitor LAUC activities on other campuses - checking minutes, etc. Instead, would it be better to be monitoring the minutes of University Advisory Bodies such as HOTS, SLASIAC, SOPAG etc.? The Executive Board agreed this was a good plan and we would pass this along to the incoming group.

Kris asked about the communication ideas discussed at the LAUC Fall Assembly. After the discussion last fall, there has been no action. Debe will ask Lise about it.

Debe found an article entitled “LAUC: The First 25 Years” that helps clarify the professional development funding issue and how the money is distributed.

At the May 16 th Academic Senate Committee on Library, the chair, Claudia Rapp, discussed briefing the new Chancellor on library issues. The COL will have a new name - Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication. There are many operational issues - high demand by users for certain titles, buying additional copies of heavily recalled titles, dealing with backlogs, bringing the Library into Orientation more formally, policies for disabled students, and the fee fine threshold going from $250 to $100.

On August 15 th, we will have the LAUC-LA Executive Board transitional meeting. The LAUC-LA committee interest forms will be sent out earlier so that committee assignments can be completed earlier.

9. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 2:49 p.m. without objection.

Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Lewis
LAUC-LA Secretary