Location: Rivera 403
Members Present: Carla Arbagey (Chair), Kat Koziar (Secretary), Diane Bisom, Marie Bronoel,
Chistina Cicchetti, Ann Frenkel, Denise Kane, Steven Mandeville-Gamble, Julie Mason,
Stephanie Milner, Tiffany Moxham, Rhonda Neugebauer, David Rios, Anthony Sanchez,
Alison Scott, Ying Shen, Patricia Smith‐Hunt, Michael Yonezawa
Meeting called to order by Rhonda Neugebauer at 2:02 p.m.
1. Gavel Exchange
a. As outgoing chair, Rhonda Neugebauer expressed appreciation and thank yous
to all who helped her during the past year; recapped the year as one of advocacy and
engagement emphasizing achievements of increased voting within LAUC‐R,
change of designee in review process, initiation of tracking recruitments in personnel, and start of LAUC‐R archive (as an idea which will be implemented this year by her).
b. Rhonda handed over LAUC‐R chair‐ship to Carla Arbagey by passing over the gavel.
c. Carla stated her platform for the year of “improving morale” and expressed desire to create a
space where all may share opinions, and ideas will be respected and listened to with an open
a. David Rios shared his duties as Director of Special Research Projects which include working
with UL, AULS and staff as appropriate to conduct research. Duties involve labor relation
support; assistance with campus cluster hires; liaison with Conacyt, Conaculta, UC‐Mexus to support UC‐Mexico Initiative; Inland Empire Memories project; HSI status; and, other duties as assigned. His new office will be in Rivera 431.
3. Approval of June 9 minutes
a. June 9 minutes were approved.
4. Ongoing Business
a. APM 360‐4 Changes
i. Carla provided background on the APM changes and creation of APM taskforce.
Deadline for feedback for current proposed changes is today (9/8); however, deadline
might be extended. Asked for any feedback from group. Michael Yonezawa stated if
the level of feedback provided is essentially nitpicking the language, there probably
won’t be a consensus from a large group of people.
ii. Carla stated current proposed changes only impact non‐represented librarians. Tiffany
Moxham requested clarification regarding how many people this change impacts. David
Rios responded five currently, but seven when the two reference manager positions are
b. Changes to The Call for librarian reviews
i. Carla stated nothing received yet. Patricia Smith‐Hunt stated we should receive
something September 30. Steven Mandeville‐Gamble confirmed Patricia’s statement,
adding VPAP Office is still folding in recent changes; their original target date was
5. New Business
a. Committee Chairs and Charges
i. Carla: Good response rate of those interested in serving on committees; however, still
need Parliamentarians. Committee members should check their email for this year’s
additional charges from the Chair.
ii. Action Item: Committee chairs to send membership list to Carla by next membership
b. Senate Committee invited guests
i. Carla gave UL privilege to select the Senate Committee invited guests.
c. Meeting Schedule for the Year
i. Bimonthly with Discussions/Theme Meetings
1. Carla suggested bimonthly meeting where during the off‐month we can have
brown‐bag discussions. Rhonda stated regret at not having many discussions.
Kat Koziar stated she liked the idea, that it will provide set time which we
already set aside where we can have librarian discussions or specific workshops.
There was general consensus for this idea by nodding of heads which was
confirmed verbally by the Chair.
1. General consensus on keeping the same day/time. Ann Frenkel pointed out that
the time would make it more of a snack‐bag than a brown bag during the off‐
2. Meetings will be bimonthly, on the second Tuesday of the month from 2:00‐
3:30p.m. with discussions during the off‐month.
6. Report from LAUC Transition Meeting
a. Carla Reported:
i. The new President of LAUC, Diane Mizrachi (UCLA), stated her platform is to “Celebrate
LAUC member scholarship & achievement.”
ii. New LAUC website lauc.ucop.edu. Check it out. Website cost $40k to develop, using
discretionary funds from more than one campus.
1. To support the new website, Web Content Group is being formed focusing on
two areas: 1) provide news from campuses to lauc.ucop.edu; 2) Social Media
iii. Suggestion to create a LAUC Journal on eScholarship to increase visibility of
librarianship. Steve stated Diane Mizrachi presented the idea to Council of University
Librarians (CoUL) who expressed strong support and explored different options for
implementation and how to remove barriers such as a journal cannot be formed on
eScholarship, but must be an outside independent entity.
iv. They are looking into creating an Archivist for LAUC.
7. As may arise
a. UC Libraries Advisory Structure (UCLAS) 2.0
i. New structure is still being revised; there are ongoing discussions between CoUL and the
Directional Oversight Committee (DOC). Ann stated she is on the DOC group; there is
nothing new to announce, but when the announcement is made she is willing to walk us
through the new structure.
b. CACLS Name Change.
i. Patricia requested clarification of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on the Librarian
Series (CACLS) name change.
1. Steve stated all other UC campuses use CAP or CAPA, and that the name CACLS
is misleading, since the group advises the UL and not the Chancellor. The name change
from CACLS to CAP or CAPA is recommended to bring the name in alignment with other UC
campuses. Since the faculty use the term CAP (Committee on Academic Personnel), we’ve been asked to append an L at the end of our name: Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Advancement‐Librarians (CAPA‐L).
c. Review, Promotion and Advancement Process.
i. Steve asked if it is helpful during the review process to allow managers/admins to have
input at the beginning so candidates may understand what managers are looking for. He
shared that the majority of push‐back he received from VPAP office during the process has
been regarding profiles which the VPAP didn’t think deserved merit increase; that 11% of laddering faculty get no merit during their process, and the VPAP thinks librarians would be similarly 11%. The resulting statement from Steve was that some profiles didn’t contain enough evidence supporting merit to convince the VPAP.
ii. Patricia stated it is helpful to get other/extra input at the beginning of the process.
iii. Steve suggested creating sample profiles: what does merit work look like at the other UCs
at the three different levels? The expectation is there is an increasingly sophisticated level of
performance as librarians increase in levels and career. UCLA bases merit not on the amount
of work, but the caliber of work. Suggests having a conversation of what merit‐worthy work
iv. Carla stated it is a good idea as long as the conversation is open and transparent.
v. Patricia asked what others think of including the manager/admin piece.
vi. Rhonda stated that for years people complained about not having an admin session.
vii. Diane stated her past experience from other campuses supports having the
manager/admin input; that having input from managers at the beginning is helpful.
viii. Alison stated there seems to be three perspectives for workshops 1) those going under
review, 2) the review initiators 3) for both 1 & 2 so they understand the process.
ix. Michael stated his experience from serving in the peer‐review process on other campuses
is every campus is different. They each have different processes and levels of expectations.
Discussing what quality work looks like is important, as well as providing examples which are
diverse and open to encompass all varieties of librarianship here.
x. Alison emphasized the importance in learning how to construct a persuasive file as seen
by non‐librarian academics/administrators.
xi. Diane included we need to understand what is impactful in what we do.
xii. Steve suggested we don’t ask the question “Why” often enough. Why are we doing what we
are doing? We get caught up in the what and the how, and forget the why. Why explains what and how.
xiii. Alison suggested if you don’t have a “so what” answer embedded in your argument, your
answer won’t be as persuasive.
xiv. Carla emphasized workshops are needed for all three levels, and would be helpful for the
xv. Marie stated if perception is key, then we need to know the weight of different areas if
the perception by the reviewers is one is more important than the other (e.g. publishing is more important than committee work).
xvi. Diane stated that all areas are equally important with the exception of area 1, in which
librarians should be excellent. And the goal is to build a well‐rounded career which touches
an all areas.
xvii. Tiffany stated that other institutions/organizations have very well defined merit processes;
however, we don’t. So, we need to learn how to write our statements effectively by including
the impact our work has.
xviii. Carla asked who would lead these workshops and improvement of the process.
xix. Steve stated the new Director of Personnel and Human Resources (DPHR) would lead,
and that he is deeply involved with implementing the process correctly.
xx. Michael voiced a concern that a non-librarian may see things as black and white, and not
understand the nuances and variability of librarianship.
xxi. Carla questioned if the new DPHR would be here in time.
xxii. Steve stated he was making an offer tomorrow. That training the review initiator is the
role of Senior Leadership in the library as per the contract/APM/MOU.
xxiii. Christina stated a need for reviews to be written consistently.
xxiv. Steve stated they are working on figuring out how the review files can be written better
and convincingly. In the past, a lot of additional work was put into making review files stronger cases, and that AULs worked to strengthen the candidate up for review. The bar is being raised across the whole campus for all candidates; the whole organization is going through hard
leadership. The library senior leadership is trying to create the ability for success in a rapidly
changing environment. Hard questions and conversations are ahead to rethink what the bar
xxv. Carla reinforced we need to know what success looks like.
xxvi. Patricia thanked Steve for his willingness to work with the librarians through this.
Meeting adjourned 3:09 p.m.
Minutes Approved November 9, 2015 LAUC‐R Member Meeting.