Executive Committee Minutes 10/21/92

LAUC-B Executive Committee                            1992/93 (3)
October 21, 1992

Present:  E. Byrne, W. Diamond, M. Drabkin, G. Handman (Chair),
R. Lhermitte, R. Moon, L. Osegueda, G. Peete, A.  Sevetson (Recorder), 
D. Sommer, P. Stewart, K. Vanden Heuvel

Guests:   S. Hinojosa, M. Harmon


A.  G. Handman announced that LAUC-B Executive Committee would have an extra 
meeting on Nov 4, 10-11am in the Bancroft Conference Room.

B.  The Berkeley Representatives for the LAUC Fall Assembly in San Francisco 
will be G. Handman, E. Byrne, K. Vanden Heuvel, and A.  Sevetson.  G. Handman 
announced the LAUC Fall Assembly will also have a celebration dinner for the 
25th Anniversary of LAUC.  All LAUC  members are welcome to attend.  The flyer 
with details of the dinner will be attached to the next issue of CU News.

C.  UCOP Library Closing - G. Handman wrote a letter to V.P.  Calvin Moore 
expressing the concerns for impact of the UCOP Library closing on the Berkeley 
Campus (distributed with agenda).  S.  Hinojosa announced a letter had been 
sent from UC AFT 1474 to Calvin Moore.  The AFT letter focussed on the 
following concerns:

     1- lack of any discussion on the closure of the library and no information 
     on the basis for this closure
     2- information requested on how UCOP intends to meet its information needs
      in the future; 
     3- concern over the impact of the closure on the UCB library system; will 
     campus libraries be expected to meet UCOP library needs? 
     4- concern over the reassignment primarily because a reassignment to the 
     Berkeley campus rather than CEB could help UCB absorb what is 
     additional future work for UCOP.

D.  G. Handman announced that he has asked Judson King, Provost of Professional Schools to
speak at the LAUC-B Fall Assembly. 

E.  Library Strategic Planning - W. Diamond has been appointed to the Library 
Cultures group as a LAUC-B Representative, D. Sommer is also on that committee. 
L. Osegueda is in the Working Group on Development and External Relations and 
R. Moon is on the Automation Committee.

F.  There were several comments on the paper LAUC revitalization at LA.  
Comments included:  it has to be read as one divisions struggling, LAUC-LA had 
a lot of turnover because of VERIP and people who would have normally taken 
LAUC leadership had retired so there was no one to serve, we are seeing some 
of the same effects of VERIP here with more to do and less time in which to 
do it. W. Diamond noted that it is a document which could be used by the Library 
Cultures Strategic Planning group, as could the LAUC- B document "The 
Librarian Series in the '90's."  It was also noted that LAUC-LA feels 
it has gotten back on track, partially as a result of the effort that 
went into this report. 
G. G. Handman announced that all of the Committees and Committee Chairs are in 
place for the 92/93 year.  The full roster will be distributed to membership.

Approval of Minutes:

The minutes for Sept 16, 1992 were approved with corrections.

Ongoing Business:

A.  M. Harmon discussed the progress LAUC-B Committee on Programs for 
Professional and Career Development in planning the Peer Review Workshop.  The 
date is November 12, 8:30-11:30 in 315 Wheeler.  A notice has gone out in CU 
News and via "lauc@ced"  Confirmed speakers are D. Sommer, R. Heckart, B. 
Whitson, R. Aasen, J.  Burrows, B. Kornstein, and B. Lhermitte.  The Committee 
also hopes to have D. Gregor speak.  The Program Committee wants the 
philosophy and history of peer review, the paper flow, and how to do a 
good self-evaluation to come out.  Supervisors of Affiliated Librarians 
should be given an explicit invitation, and all review initiators should 
make a point of attending, especially in view of the new Peer Review 
timetable compliance guidelines.

B. G. Handman announced that only one comment had been received about the Peer 
Review Timetable Compliance information which had been sent out the LAUC-B 
membership in early October.  G. Handman said the next step would be to propose actual
language for the Berkeley guidelines to the APM and to send that to The 
Vice Chancellor and the University Librarian for review.  The sub-committee 
will meet, and there should be language reflecting the changes in time for the 
Peer Review workshop.

C. G. Handman announced that the LAUC-B Budget has been approved by The Vice 
Chancellor.  A motion was made and passed to purchase a laptop PC for the use 
of the LAUC-B Secretary and CAPA.   

New Business:

A.  G. Handman and E. Byrne reported on their meeting with M. Teitz, Academic 
Senate Chair.  He is interested in their proposal for including Librarians on 
Academic Senate Committees (other than the Senate Library Committee) and 
requested that LAUC-B submit a short discussion paper on the mutual benefits 
of this action.  E. Byrne is in the process of drafting such a document.  E. 
Byrne also had a list of faculty members on Academic Senate Committees which will be 
distributed to Executive Committee.  She noted that very few of the Academic 
Senate Committees activities were reflected in the committee names.

B.  E. Byrne reported on the Faculty Senate Library Committee meeting.  Members are Jeremy
Waldron (Law) Chair, Diane Clemens (Hist), William Clemens (Int Bio),Leonard Duhl (SAHS),
Ralph Greif (ME), Laurent Mayali (Law), Hung-Hsi Wu (Math),Ron Lopez (student), Mike
Young (student).  Some proposals were brought forward by Library Administration:
     1- downsizing in the 90's in collections and increasing sharing, 
        getting the faculty to buy in, and 
     2- dealing with the very expensive Sci/Tech Journals.  The Library is 
        trying to promote a policy that faculty who write using university 
        material cannot give away copyright. 
     3- Making loan policies for journals shorter.  K. Vanden Heuvel will 
        attend the next meeting for E. Byrne.

C.  Guidelines for Extension of the Timetable.  K. Vanden Heuvel presented the 
guidelines developed by the group.  Much discussion centered on who should 
actually grant extensions, whether it should be a centralized body, or an 
agreement between the review initiator and the reviewee, or whomever needs the 
extension and the person next to receive the packet.  The feeling of LAUC-B was that it should be
between the person needing the extension and the person 
directly "up" in the review process.