Membership Meeting: June 9, 2015

OSL 240

Members Present: Sharon K Scott, Krista Ivy, David Rios, Carla Arbagey, Steve Mandeville-Gamble, Alison Scott, Diane Bisom, Kat Koziar, Denise Kane, Melissa Cardenas-Dow, Anthony Sanchez, Ann Frenkel, Rhonda Neugebauer, Judy Lee, Patricia Smith Hunt, Kuei Chiu, Marie Bronoel, Julie Mason, Michele Potter, Tiffany Moxham

  1. Welcome, announcements, recaps, accomplishments: RN – June 10th Webinar for UCLAS sent out via email. SKS – made announcements on recent LAUC-R exec board and CACLS members.
  2. LAUC-R Current Pending Items

A. RN – Interviews underway for the Klein Science Fiction librarian. AScott – Thanks membership for participation in the presentations, feedback, and meetings. RN – Asks if anyone has ideas for LAUC-R sessions for interviews. AS – Suggests using the summary found on the LAUC-R website instead of a printout of the new candidacy website. SMG – Suggests using a person as a resource for follow up questions from the candidate in addition to the LAUC-R website summary document. AF – Recommends handing out a document for CACLS related information, as well as anything related to the peer review process. Suggests more time for academic research interests and professional experiences rather than information on the peer review process. CA – Suggests formalizing the meeting with a more structured agenda and what LAUC-R’s goals are in this meeting. PSM – Mentions possibility in the past of attaching CACLS/Peer Review process to the job description. Also brings up issue of giving questions to the candidates, and agrees with a restructuring. DB – Suggests sending links to the LAUC-R documents in email. AF – Mentions that they are included. DR – Mentions that the HR person would most likely do make any amendments to new candidate website. RN – Would like to nail down the goals of the meeting. Suggests that Carla takes on restructuring process as part of taking on the Chairship. CA – Agrees.

B. Update to review process via VPAP Dr. Amae Walker: SMG – Library Admin has submitted a set of revisions to the call, and the VPAP’s office has begun looking them over. Has also revised document based on LAUC-R recommendations. VPAP’s office has all documents, timeline is unknown currently, but should be finalized by early June or July. MP – The process has been enjoyable and the VPAP’s office has been responsive. CA – Noted concern for reciprocal viewing of documents from administration and confirmed that it was asked for in letter to VPAP.

  1. Reports from LAUC-R Officers

A. RN – Budget

B. AS – May minutes were sent out before meeting today, please send revisions.

C. CA – Personnel job ads reviewed. Webinar on staff morale was successful.

D. Discussion and Decision about Representatives: RN – Ideas for assessment of the pilot project? Initial pilot was for 2 years. CA – First year was formative, second year more successful. AF – Question regarding the institutionalized nature of the appointments. Seems to be dependent on a receptive chair. MP – Does depend on the chair’s interpretation of “guest” as a part of the faculty senate committees. The pilot was started to feel out these concerns. SMG – Receives letter asking for representatives from LAUC-R. Believes Michael Yonezawa was invited to more meetings than the prior year, mostly likely to his familiarity amongst the academic senate. Academic Senate does not reach out to admin for agenda items, unlike other campus entities that may have more roles aligned with the academic senate activities. KK – How long are the senator’s terms? SMG – Depends on a year or more, the chair is on a 2 year cycle, while vice chair is on a year cycle, while members cycle in and out mostly on a yearly basis. Parliamentarian is also a 2 year appointment. MB – Likes the idea of the library guest being there for 2 years in order to become familiar with faculty. JL – Agrees with Marie that is necessary to be on a committee for at least 2 years to build relationships amongst faculty. CA – Mentions a lack of utility of serving on the committee on courses. Does not want to recommend losing our influence, but would like to assess the basis for serving on this committee. MP – Mentions the usefulness of having a line of information on new courses and being able to be ahead of the course for any needed resources. AF – Suggests someone from collection development being on the committee on courses. Brings up the issue of online courses. SMG – Might suggest a debriefing for the recent cluster hires. SKS – Suggests that LAUC-R executive board take it up. RN – Will refer to exec board to refine the issue. MP – When do we get the letter from the senate asking for reps? SMG – After summer was over, around September. MP – Once concern is that their terms might be different from LAUC’s. Should work to get ahead of their letter asking for reps. SMG – Coming this fall Takashita will be chair and is willing to meet over the summer to plan for upcoming academic year. MP – Right now might be advisable to get the appointments. CA – Will send out committee preferences earlier this year. SMG – Cindy Palmer, chief executive officer for day to day operations has ended her tenure and is moving on from UCR.

  1. Committee Chair Reports and Updates

A. Upcoming Programs: AS – Upcoming virtual brown bag lunch with Carlos Rodriguez to discuss learning spaces and student staffing. SMG – Grand Valley State University is also hosting a conference on these very same issues, will look into funding library representatives to attend. Recommends sending half page note by week’s end for wanting to attend conference. AF – Send out description of GVSU conference to LAUC-R membership. SMG – Suggests road trips to tour library facilities and garner ideas for library spaces. MB – Suggests touring of Loma Linda Library.

B. SKS – System bylaws are changing so the committee on committees will most likely be working on those in the future year.

C. Research and Development: JM – was able to refund all submittals through LAUC-R. Receipts needed for Sherri as soon as possible. Has changes on system-wide committee for grants if anyone is interested.

D. Diversity: CA – Micro-aggressions webinar was successful. Would like to have a book club start over the summer. System-wide committee is looking to track LAUC through the ages, most demographics reports are unavailable. Numbers are dwindling and records show through UCOP that we are at the lowest since record keeping. SMG – provost office has sent out information on their commitment to hiring practices regarding diversity. DR – Language will be added to relay a strong commitment to diversity on behalf of candidates. DB – Reads paragraphs on UCR’s commitment to hiring diverse candidates, and to diversity overall.

E. Committee on Professional Governance: JL – Nothing to report.

F. LAUC-R Website Update: Yoko Kudo not present. RN – working with Alexandra to transition the contents. CA – System-wide update will be upcoming.

  1. 2015 LAUC-R Elections: Election results sent out.
  2. 2015 LAUC System-wide Ballots: Sent out.
  3. Additional LAUC System-wide Activities
    A. Carla will spearhead UCLAS changes.
  1. New Campus Cluster Hires:

A. SMG – New lines being created. Received over 100 proposals. Provost has approved 130 positions. At least 8 faculty members will be hired within the Mexican diaspora. New faculty has been spread out evenly among the colleges. Meetings will be forthcoming for roll out of hiring. Might expect faculty to arrive by winter. There has been a campus wide space study in order to accommodate the new faculty hires. Spaces within the library might become homes for faculty or programs that resonate with the mission of the library. Librarian positions may be present in the next cluster of new hires. JL – Would like to see allocations for collections. AScott – Has been tasked to make strategic budget requests in order to target certain programs or necessary resources. SMG – The campus has completely revised the budget process. Revisions may include negotiations with the colleges and schools aligned with the library to determine budget allocations. KI – When is the new budget expected to take hold? SMG – This year has been determined as a hold harmless year, in order to assess impacts, and by the end of June 2016 the new budget process will go live. Colleges and schools are being tasked to be more creative about fund raising. DB – Many budget systems are moving to new IT systems as well.


Meeting Adjourned 3:10pm