2009 Fall Assembly

LAUC-B Fall Assembly Minutes
Friday, December 11, 2009
8:30 - 10:00 AM
Morrison Library

I. Welcome (T. Leonard)
- T. Leonard briefly commented about campus-wide energy curtailments. He described his recent
trip to Finland, where he met several research librarians who expressed goodwill and positive
acknowledgements of UC Berkeley librarians. They talked about challenges for librarians,
including concerns about information literacy among younger generations, who are not prepared
to do library research. For instance, in Italy, there are few books available in their own language
that can assist them with research. An interesting aspect is that mass digitization is proceeding
more quickly in North America than it is in Europe, although Europeans are interested in what
Google is doing.

II. Announcing new and retiring LAUC-B members (M. Phillips)
- New librarians include: Dana Jemison, Jeffery Loo and Cheryl Cook. Recently retired librarians
include: Susana Hinojosa, Lee Leighton, Mari Miller, Seyem Petrites, Milt Ternberg and Ruth
Girill.

III. Report on the LAUC Statewide Assembly, "The future of UC librarians: redefining our
role for the 21st century and beyond" (L. Diamond, LAUC President)
- L. Diamond thanked the people on the conference planning committee. The afternoon portion of
the assembly was about the future of libraries and librarians. There were good conversations held
at various tables and kickoff questions for discussion. There will be a regional meeting held in the
South so that LAUC members who could not attend can also contribute to the discussion. The
purpose of this discussion is to revise the LAUC position paper on the UC librarian to describe
what librarians really do and what skill set librarians need to serve patrons in the future. The plan
is to use the collected information in redesigning librarian roles, which will be important for
deciding what types of skills new librarians should have when hiring in the future. The Committee
on Professional Governance is putting together a plan to distribute the information in a more
permanent format. M. Phillips and L. Diamond will continue to discuss this topic in the future.

IV. LAUC-B Committee Reports

A. CAPA Chair's Report (L. Jones)
- The CAPA roster and report were briefly reviewed (the report is posted at:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/LAUC/minutes/index.html). In summary, CAPA reviewed
one position description, interviewed 12 candidates for 4 positions, and reviewed 35
dossiers (13 from the Affiliated Libraries), most of which were at the Associate Librarian
level. The University Librarian and CAPA agreed on most issues, but disagreed on a
few.
- There is a need for people to serve on ad-hoc committees, so for those who are asked to
serve, please say yes. The upcoming year for CAPA will be busy.

B. Executive Committee Chair's Report (M. Phillips)
- M. Phillips acknowledged all of the other ExComm members.
- The LAUC conference on October 23 was a successful event. M. Phillips congratulated
the planning committee and committee chairs P. Maughan and T. Huwe. The next
conference will be in 2011. Any ideas on a conference theme should be sent to
members of ExComm, who will charge a conference planning committee in Spring 2010.
Those interested in serving on the committee should contact M. Phillips. The previous
year’s committee created a Best Practices document that will be helpful to refer to.
- The LAUC-B Committee reports were sent out by J. Bolstad to the membership and
will be posted on web site soon.
- The Nominations and Elections Committee worked hard this year to find volunteers to
serve on committees. M. Phillips emphasized that contributing time to serving on
committees is important.
- ExComm will be charging the “CAPA Task force on Special Issues” to clarify the
Berkeley Procedures document, which addresses 3 points: 1) the distinguished step, 2)
the concept of degree equivalency, and 3) the timeframe for next review in cases of
out-of-cycle advancement or cases of denied advancement.
- C. Lee asked membership to think about nominations for candidates for the
Distinguished Librarian Award. Members interested in serving on the Distinguished
Librarian Award Committee should contact C. Lee.

V. Discussion of the Statement of Responsibility (M. Phillips)
- Background information: The most recent Memorandum of Understanding between UC and the
AFT (ratified by the membership in Spring 2008) includes a new clause related to a "Statement of
Responsibility." See Article 6.B.1-3 at:
http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaini
ng_units/librarians_lib/contract_articles/article_6.pdf
- ExComm has discussed this and believes that the Statement of Responsibility can be a brief,
general document initiated by each librarian in collaboration with his or her supervisor/review
initiator. The Statement should be reviewed regularly and modified as necessary. All librarians are
required to have a Statement of Responsibility in their file. This requirement did not come from
LAUC nor Library Administration.
- H. Dekker added that the purpose of the Statement is to attempt to address workload issues,
since some librarians on campuses had felt that they had been assigned unreasonable workloads.
The Statement should list the general responsibilities of one’s job and provides a basis for
comparison, if a librarian is assigned new duties.
- M. Phillips asked: Should LAUC-B should be discussing this? Would it be helpful for the
membership to have templates for the Statement of Responsibility?

Q: Who is supposed to come up with the Statement?
A: It will be initiated by Librarians, and they will work collaboratively on it with their
supervisors/review initiators.
Q: According to the MOU, new librarians need to have a Statement written within 30 days of hire.
But, what about librarians who have been here for years?
A: The MOU states that the Statement should be written after the most recent review period, but
no more specific timeframe is given.
Q: Will the Statement be included as part of the review process?
A: No, it will not be submitted with your dossier.
Comments:
- When librarians go through review, they update their job descriptions anyway. It seems
reasonable that both could be done at same time. There is no need for a template for the
Statement because most positions have a general job description already.
- I didn’t think there were job descriptions, so a template would be useful.

VI. Featured talk: "Of Orphan Works and Orwellian Worries: Implications of the Google
Book Search Settlement"
Guest Speaker: Professor Jason M. Schultz, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law; Director,
Samuelson Law, Technology & Pubic Policy Clinic. Full biography:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=5599
Topics discussed:
- The concept of free speech regarding information that gets posted online.
- Fair use and privacy and how these relate to the Google Book Search Settlement.
- What Google Book Search is and what the lawsuit filed against Google implies.
Brief summary:
- Google has over 10 million scanned books, most of which were made available by publishers,
although some came from libraries. Also included, are “Orphan works,” which are scanned books
that are copyrighted, but there is no owner. Google was sued because publishers and authors felt
it was a copyright infringement for them to display 8-12 lines (snippets) of text where words
appear in Google Book Search.
- The Settlement has pros and cons.
• It gives Google permission to make the full-text of in-copyright books available. Up to 20%
of each book may be previewed online for free. There are options for users to purchase
further access or buy a pdf. Google has gained even greater access to books and has had
opportunities to research (data mining, looking at metadata) what users are looking for.
This is largest copyright licensing deal in history of the world.
• The fact that Google has gotten sued works to its advantage because for anybody else to
compete, they would also have to also get sued. This is because Google now has access
to “orphan works” and out-of-print titles. Is this really a competitive advantage for Google?
It is, only if other companies don’t care about “orphan works.” How valuable are “orphan
works” to the public, and how much are they willing to pay? This issue will continue to be
monitored.
• Privacy is an important issue to librarians. A user’s right to maintain confidentiality of items
they consult is a concern when it comes to Google Book Search. What type of information
is being transmitted when one uses Search? Will Google take on the role of protecting its
users? Should we expect them to? Can Google assert this right? What does it mean if
Google does not? If one accesses Google Book Search, will it be able to track every page
looked at, and will it be able to identify the user? What is interesting is that nothing in the
settlement talks about what Google is going to do with user information.
- Although Google has committed to protecting the privacy of users for two of its products (Google
Health and Google Latitude), it is not willing to do the same for Google Book Search.

Q: How effective are software solutions that are now in browsers?
A: Although they are very innovative, they are not yet effective.
Q: What happened to fair use?
A: The question is does the Settlement hurt fair use? Some people are skeptical because
publishers are making money off of the snippets. Is this harming the relative market?
Q: Clarify what happens with the Settlement to Google Books Search?
A: If the settlement is rejected, Google can ask for modifications, but keep Search as it is. If the
settlement is accepted, then it remains the same as it is now.
Q: What is the value of the aggregate data of what people are accessing?
A: From a financial point of view, the data Google gets on book usage is important to them. But, it
is a privacy issue.