LAUC-B Executive Committee 1995/96 (1)
September 28, 1995
10:00-12:00, Room 303 Doe Library
Present: R.Brandt, B.Glendenning; D.Kearney; B.Kornstein;
C.Kubota; G.Peete; V.Roumani-Denn; K.Vanden Heuvel (Chair);
P.Vanderberg (Secretary)
Absent: J.Ober, T.Dean
Guest: W.Benneman
I. Announcements
The new LAUC-B committee rosters are being compiled
and will be sent to the library gopher and web sites. The LAUC-B
members list can be updated by consulting J.Burrows for the
General Library and D.Kearney for the Affiliated Libraries. The
general LAUC-B electronic mail reflector is maintained by M.Snow.
II. LAUC-B Budget
$1500.00 has been requested for a conference on
copyright. The total budget is $45,853.00.
III. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of July 26, 1995
were approved as amended.
IV. Peer Review
I.Arguelles is still Chair of CAPA and he reported
that there are still two cases that have not yet been sent to
CAPA. Efforts are being made to streamline the self-evaluation
process to reduce the length and amount of detail of the
evaluations and to properly identify the step and criteria for
the librarian review. Ideally the evaluations could be limited
to two pages for merit cases, with greater length being expected
for promotions.
ACTION: I.Arguelles will draft self-evaluation
guidelines which will suggest a two page limit for regular merit
reviews, with longer evaluations for promotions and career
status. This document will be distributed via email to LAUC-B
Executive Committee for comment and will be sent to LHRD and
Academic Personnel for distribution to candidates. It will also
be sent out on email to all LAUC-B members.
A revision to the local peer review guidelines is being prepared
that will introduce clarifying wording about the review point at
which a librarian is first eligible for advancement from L-IV to
L-V. CAPA recommends that it be treated as a special review.
This will require a change to the local guidelines.
ACTION: CAPA recommends a change in permitting the
option of special review instead of promotion review at the
Librarian IV to V levels. B.Kornstein will send K.Vanden Heuvel
a copy of the recommendation.
I.Arguelles was recognized for his outstanding work as
CAPA chair and all the progress made by this years CAPA committee
was commended.
D.Jan has arranged two brown bag lunches to discuss
peer review issues in late October. There will be one for
reviewees and the other for review iniatiors.
V. LAUC-B Bylaws
The LAUC-B Cultural Diversity Committee has proposed
bylaws changes that would allow for an appointment of a
representative by LAUC-B to the LAUC Statewide Cultural Diversity
Committee that might be other than chair of the LAUC-B Cultural
Diversity Committee. This would require a change in wording of
the LAUC-B bylaws. B.Kornstein presented a proposal for a change
in the wording.
VI. Affirmative Action
G.Peete drafted a statement in support of diversity at
the University of California. This was in response to the recent
decision by the UC regents to no longer follow affirmative action
guidelines. It was sent out to major UC administrative
officials.
B.Benneman, Chair of the LAUC-B Cultural Diversity
Committee was present during the discussion of why we could not
sign the petition opposing the UC Regents policy of disregarding
affirmative action guidelines. He said that affirmative action
issues were infinitely debatable, but expressed the need to do
something and get the LAUC membership involved. He suggested
some kind of statement be drafted by LAUC-B. He also proposed
that a cultural diversity web site be established to advertise
and encourage cultural diversity. It could be a repository for
documents on cultural diversity and policies on affirmative
action. It was thought that the LAUC-B Cultural Diversity
committee could take the lead on establishing a web site and that
it could also be supported by LAUC statewide. The web site would
be a scholarly high profile repository of documents designed to
serve an international community and allow for broader
participation of librarians in cultural diversity issues. It was
also suggested that the LAUC-B membership communicate about these
issues on the general LAUC membership reflector
(lauc@ced.berkeley.edu). It was recommended that LAUC-B endorse
Chancellor Tien's iniative to support cultural diversity.
ACTION: K.Vanden Heuvel will draft a LAUC-B resolution
supporting Chancellor Tien's Berkeley initiative, which will be
distributed to the LAUC-B membership and to the chancellor and
vice-chancellor.
VII. Communications
Ancillary to the main discussion on cultural diversity,
there developed a discussion on the appropriate use of particular
communication methods for distributing information.
Clarification is needed on when items are appropriate for the
Library gopher or web sites and when items could be discussed on
the various electronic mail lists. Guidelines could be developed
that would facilitate use of particular methods and would improve
communications in the library. P.Vanderberg suggested that a
task force be formed to study these matters and make
recommendations on netiquette, organization and structuring of
library email lists, possiblities for filtering etc.
VIII. Copyright Conference
K.Vanden Heuvel presented a proposal for a conference
on copyright sponsored by the Townsend Center for the Humanities,
the Library, LAUC-B, and others. It will be to discuss the impact
of copyright laws on libraries within the context of digital age.
IX. Laptop Computer Guidelines
Guidelines for use of the LAUC-B laptop computers were
distributed and discussed. A form needs to be designed for loan
of this equipment. G.Peete has one of the laptop computers in
his possession. There are supposed to be two computers for the
use of LAUC-B for research and professional development
activities.
X. Upward Evaluation
J.Harlan sent an email message on the status of the
proposal for upward evaluation of supervisors. That proposal was
sent to library administration and so far as we know has not been
acted upon.