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 (email@example.com). 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.