Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 1:00-3:00 p.m.
West Electronic Classroom, YRL

Present: Keri Botello, David Cappoli, Debe Costa (Chair), Kris Kasianovitz, Cynthia Lewis (Recorder) , Aura Lippincott, Diane Mizrachi, Maureen Russell, Ken Wade.   Absent: Janet Carter, Miki Goral, Hannah Walker 

1. Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m.

2. Agenda review and announcements

Debe let everyone know that Gary Strong might stop by the meeting.

3. Secretary’s Report

-Review and approval of the September 20 th Executive Board minutes

The minutes of the October 18th Executive Board meeting were approved without exception.

4. Chair's report (Costa)

Debe began with highlights from the panel discussion Managing Intellectual Property IP issues. The session was well attended with over 100 present. Librarians were invited for the main talk, and then the faculty continued with break out sessions. Debe’s sense was that this was very illuminating for the faculty, especially regarding issues of who actually owns an article. The content is often licensed to the publisher and not to the author. Kris mentioned the importance that open access journals play in this issue. The presentation was videotaped, and the material can be viewed on the library website at http://www2.library.ucla.edu/symposium/ .

Following are the full minutes from the Academic Senate Committee on Library:

ACADEMIC SENATE LOS ANGELES DIVISION
COMMITTEE ON LIBRARY ( COL)
Draft MINUTES

November 22, 2005

PRESENT: Rogers Brubaker (Chair), Alan DeCherney, Lawrence Kruger, Claudia Rapp, Michael Teitell, Gary Strong (University Librarian - Ex-Officio)

ABSENT: Daniel Blumstein, Gail Lenhoff, Stanley Trimble, Daniel Yang

GUESTS: Deborah Costa ( Librarian Association University California), Terry Ryan ( Associate University Librarian), Cynthia Shelton ( Associate University Librarian)

STUDENTS: Adriana Ahumada (Undergraduate Student Representative)

STAFF: Tom Nykiel

MEETING: The meeting was in the Young Research Library and was called to order at approximately 2:00 pm.

1. Faculty Symposium

A faculty symposium on “Managing Intellectual Property: What Faculty Need to Know to Publish and Teach in the Digital Age” was held on November 18, 2005. The symposium was characterized as a large success. Approximately 150 people attended including 100 faculty members. The symposium was planned in partnership with the Academic Senate, Office of Information Technology, Office of Intellectual Property, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, and the Faculty Committee on Education Technology. The recorded sessions of the symposium will be on the Library’s webpage.

Sessions included:

Using copyrighted materials – your own and others’ in and out of the classroom
Managing your copyright in the age of digital publishing
Disseminating scholarship: Scholarly Societies, Open Access, and Self Archiving
New requirements for disseminating research findings

2. Update on the Statewide Senate University Committee on Library

Professor Brubaker reported on the statewide Senate University Committee on Library (UCOL) meeting held November 14, 2005. The UCOL reviewed four draft white papers prepared by the Senate’s Academic Council’s Special Committee on Scholarly Communication on the following topics.

1. Evaluation of Publications in the Academic Personnel Processes – This paper notes that new ways of presenting and disseminating scholarly work are inevitable and they must be attended by protection of the quality of scholarship and extend successful practices in evaluating that quality.

2. Challenges Facing Scholarly Communications – Copyright Issues: There is a proposed UC policy that as a condition of employment UC faculty members would grant limited, non-exclusive rights to the Senate, for purposes of online dissemination and preservation on the author’s and public behalf. Thus the faculty member would not have to negotiate individually with publishers. The policy would have an opt-out clause.

3. Journal Publishing: The Academic Senate calls upon – and seeks partnerships with – those who publish scholarly journals to 1) seek only the copyrights necessary for first publication; 2) concentrate on adding value to, rather than ownership of scholarship; 3) pursue innovation to improve scholarly communications systems; 4) avoid monopoly pricing 5) provide transparent financial information 6) enable permanent access to the scholarly record. Journals might be ranked by the responsibleness of their prices.

4. Scholarly Monograph Publishing: In some fields the scholarly monograph is in peril. In many fields opportunities for publishing monographs have become scarce, even as they remain critically important to scholarly communication and a requirement for scholarly advancement. Analysis, planning, and action to address the problems must become a shared priority of authors, universities, and publishers.

The COL will review the white papers when they are distributed to the local campuses.

3. Trends in Monograph Acquisitions at UCLA and other Institutions: The COL reviewed graphs of expenditures for monographs for UCLA, UC Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard, and Michigan from 1989 to 2003. The source of the data was the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Professor Brubaker noted that UCLA started at the top for expenditures and ended at the bottom for these universities. UL Strong noted that funding for acquisitions at UCLA have not increased. The Library lost about 60 staff positions which created a processing backlog. The processing backlog consists of items that are purchased but are not ready for the faculty. Ratio data from Melvyl on UCLA acquisitions as a percentage of UCI, UCSD, and UCB was reviewed. UCI and UCSD, which received more funding from enrollment growth, caught up dramatically with UCLA. We do not know if UCI and UCSD are acquiring monographs in core areas. UCLA is acquiring specialized items which are more expensive. Data from the ARL and California Digital Library note that books are being reduced because of the expense of journals. Journals are now roughly 70% of expenditures with books at 30%. The campus administration has kept the Library budget flat. The Library is falling behind with acquisitions because publications are exploding with dramatic growth. Overall, monograph purchases have decreased. Academic programs such as South Asian studies are added regularly. There is no corresponding increase to the Library budget for acquisitions when new programs are added.

Graphs of Social Sciences (Combined) Monographs, 1995-2004, and History Monographs, 1995-2004, were distributed. These graphs are from a new data reporting tool. UL Strong is interested if this data reporting is useful to the COL. What other data reporting is useful for the COL?

4. Budget Discussion: The strategic plans for all campus units were submitted on November 15, 2005. There have been no instructions from campus administration regarding submitting budgets for the next academic year. The Library is expecting a flat budget. In 2008-09 there is a 1% budget increase in the UC Compact with the Governor. The COL decided that writing a letter to the Chancellor urging more resources for the Library is appropriate.

5. Faculty Committee on Education Technology (FCET): AUL Terry Ryan briefed the COL on the FCET. The FCET provides institutional leadership on the use of technology in undergraduate instruction and develops plans and implements strategic projects in support of UCLA’s mission. The FCET and the Library are planning several initiatives including a pilot for preserving quality work by students in eScholarship and posting digital teaching modules into eLearnStor. High quality student work might remain accessible to future students taking the course. Currently, each division or department, faculty member or IT staff member defines the policies and processes that relate to the “afterlife” of course websites. Key questions to ask about the content of course websites to decide upon the afterlife are, 1) Are you willing to share? 2) Is the content worth keeping? 3) Are we allowed to keep it? 4) Where will it be kept?

The COL decided not to serve as a joint sponsor of the Library and Educational Technology partnership. The COL is supportive but does not want to sign on as a full fledged partner. COL members were asked to identify possible faculty partners for the pilots to AUL Terry Ryan.

6. Approval of Minutes: Members were asked to e-mail any emendations to the minutes of the October 11, 2005 meeting to Tom Nykiel.

7. Meeting Schedule: The May meeting date has changed to May 16, 2006 from May 23, 2006.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:50pm.

Debe moved on to discuss the Library Strategic Plan. She urged Executive Board members to read the document carefully. In our role as an advisory board, we will discuss the plan at our next meeting. A decision was made to host a LAUC-LA brown bag discussion to see if there are issues of concern to LAUC-LA members.

At this point, Debe called for an Executive session.

5. LAUC Assembly, Santa Cruz (Kasianovitz, Lippincott)

Kris and Aura reported on the Assembly. The meeting began with formal business and then there were break out sessions on Enabling Technologies for LAUC and Discussion of Report from Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction and Proposed Bylaws/Standing Rules.

Highlights from the President’s Report:

Standing Committees – there are approximately 56-60 people in Standing Committees, however at any given time, a number of these groups are not “active” or have specific work to complete. How can we better utilize these people for LAUC work? Should we rethink the committee structure, which ties in with the importance of the Bylaws discussion/work.

Open Access – Starting and Open Access Journal for LAUC in the area of Library Science has been researched. Due to various costs and managing a publication, it was decided that pursuing a journal at this time is not feasible. However, LAUC should still pursue a way to capture its scholarly output. E-scholar and SAKAI were mentioned.

Challenge of conducting LAUC business – how can we use technology to make this easier? LAUC web site exists, but it is very difficult to locate information, have to know structure, who did what, in order to find reports and information. Are there ways to better/different ways to deploy the operating budget (each campus sends up to 5 people to a meeting.) We devoted a good portion of the morning session to discussing this issue.

UL’s Meeting – UL did an exercise to define priorities:

• Digital stewardship (what is the role of the libraries and librarians?): A discussion topic for Spring Assembly – should we consider getting a panel or speaker for this topic? Volunteers from UCLA to put this together?

For the full President’s Report, please see: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/president/fallreport05.html

LAUC Committee Report Highlights :

Nominating Committee – Terry Huwe:

The election calendar is on the LAUC web site. They are searching for candidates – so consider a position or consider a colleague for one.

Research and Professional Development – Lise Snyder:

Grant application documents will be available on the web site in January. Note: There is a new report to be filled out by grant recipients.

The committee has another charge to look at creating space on eScholarship to post completed LAUC grant projects; how will the editorial structure be set up; who will do this? UL’s supported this idea:

Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction – P. Weiss

Please see: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/committees/crj/Report_CCRJ_2005_09.pdf

Committee on Instructional Roles of Librarians – K. Lucas:

Still working; talked about how much instruction/what kind of instruction. How big/controversial is this issues at the UCs?

Please see: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/committees/irah/Report_InstructionalRoles_2005_11.pdf

Representative Reports :

For full reports, please see links from the agenda: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/assembly/assemblyfallagenda2005.html

Scholarly Communication – Janet Carter:

There are 5 white papers being written by faculty members who are on Academic Senate about scholarly communication. They will be released in December and we will have two months to review, with a potential for discussion and adoption at the Spring Assembly.

The question was raised about whether or not each campus has a copyright or intellectual property office for faculty to consult when issues arise. Will the group look at this issue and identify what each campus has? Should campuses have Scholarly Communication Committees?

Jenny asked if anyone had questions for her to take back:

Could reports about the librarian series also break down by ethnicity?

Are costs for medical and dental benefits going up significantly?

[At this point, Gary Strong stepped into the LAUC-LA Executive Board Meeting. He let everyone know that there will be an all staff meeting to discuss the Library Strategic Plan on Monday January 9 th in the California Room at the Faculty Center. He wished everyone happy holidays and left. The Executive Board decided to schedule a brown bag discussion about the Library Strategic Plan for Friday, January 6 th in the Green Room in Schoenberg. ]

Back to the LAUC Fall Assembly report…

The afternoon was devoted to break out discussion groups.

The first topic was Enabling Technologies for LAUC. Break out groups dealt with the following topics:

• How to use technology to disseminate LAUC member publications
• What kind of virtual meeting and web conferencing software can LAUC use.
• Are official LAUC documents findable? How can we improve?
• How can we preserve and provide access to LAUC historical documents and information?
• What kind of technologies can be used to help the work of LAUC committees and the challenges they face?

Break out groups were instructed to talk about positive and negative experiences related to their topic, and then each group was to talk about tangible methods/technologies to help improve the situation. The methods/technologies were recorded and presented back to the entire group. After the presentations, attendees voted for the top 5 suggestions. (See below for results.)

The second breakout discussion topic was the Discussion of Report from Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction and Proposed Bylaws/Standing Rules.

Each group was given a specific section to discuss. Each group was asked to either agree with the changes as they stand, disagree, or agree with revisions. The groups were given 20 minutes.

There was a motion to split standing rules and the bylaws and then look at the bylaws by themselves. Another suggestion was to accept everything or vote everything down.

Debe then reported on the LAUC Fall Assembly, Executive Board Meeting.

Lise and Jenny met with the ULs. The underlying question from the ULs was why is LAUC doing this? And the other message was do not touch anything that has to do with the Academic Personnel Manual.

From the enabling technology discussion, the votes for how to proceed broke down like this:

18 would like to see an orientation for new LAUC members.
17 would like to see a Content Management System.
15 would like to see an evaluation of the LAUC archives.
12 would like to see the implementation of D-space.
10 would like to see the optimization of face to face meetings.

Jenny will ask for an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate these issues with the goal of creating a toolkit of technologies which would support having a place to store working documents and orientation components, etc.

LAUC Executive Board Bylaws Discussion

Three conclusions seem to have come out of the bylaws discussion:

It is hard to drum up charges for standing committees so we should take out the mention of any committees. If we need a committee, we should create ad hoc committees as needed.

We should keep the standing committees but put the housekeeping in the standing rules.

Keep the proposed bylaws as they are.

The result was to take the committees out of the bylaws and create standing rules.

For more information on the LAUC Fall Assembly, including full reports, please visit: http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/assembly/assemblyfallagenda2005.html

6. Committee reports

-Committee on Library Plans and Policies ( Walker)

No report. 

-Committee on Professional Governance (Wade)  

Ken reported that he welcomed the members of the committee, but there isn’t a committee charge yet.

-Committee on Research and Professional Development (Mizrachi)

Diane mentioned that the statewide call has been issued. She had hoped to offer a brown bag for librarians interested in applying, but the timing is too close. So the committee will hold a brown bag in the late spring to generate interest for next year. The committee also discussed whether members of the committee can act as mentors for applicants as it is a conflict of interest. Diane also noted that the deadline for the mini-grants has changed.

-Committee on Programs (Cappoli)  

David reported the following:

Scheduled Programs:

• Brown Bag lunch with Deputy University Librarian, Susan Parker. January 30, 2006, 12:30 – 2:00 in the Library Conference Center in YRL. He will put out a call for questions for Susan ahead of time.
• IS Faculty member Ethelene Whitmire on “Why do undergraduates go to the library and how do they seek information once they get there?” This program will be held on February 14, 2006 in the Library Conference Center in YRL.
• Program on the “State of Information Studies” featuring IS Chair Anne Gilliland will be held on March 16, 2006 at 3:00 p.m., and there will be a reception following the event in GSE&IS 111.
• Spring Membership Meeting and Distinguished Librarian Reception will be held May 24, 2006, 1:00 – 4:00 pm in the Library Conference Center ( Faculty Center?)

Proposed Programs and Activities:

• Showcase of staff talents (July 2006) – Kristen Wilson. $125.00 is required for the audio system.
• Lewis & Clark expedition – Marsha Kmec is pursuing additional sponsors because of the speaker’s fee.
• Current status of campus diversity programs – Proposed by committee member Ruby Gutierrez
• Tour of the Shared Processing Facility and the Film and TV Archive – Nancy Norris and Andrea Leigh are looking into jointly sponsoring these programs with the Library Staff Association

-CAPA Update (Botello)

Since the last LAUC-LA Executive Board Meeting, the following CAPA activities have taken place:

CAPA has met on Wednesdays from 1 – 3 pm to discuss activities/process/procedures for the upcoming year.

On November 21, members of CAPA who were Peer Review Committee members during the 2004 – 05 review cycle attended the Peer Review Debriefing meeting with the University Librarian.

On November 28, members of CAPA attended the Peer Review Documentation Workshop for the 2005 -06 review cycle.

On November 30, all members of CAPA met with the University Librarian and the Director of Library Human Resources for a CAPA Orientation. After this meeting, CAPA will review all upcoming appointments to the Librarian Series.

On December 2 nd, members of CAPA attended the Review Initiator’s Workshop.

CAPA has issued “CAPA Capsules” via LAUCtalk. The purpose of the alerts to librarians is to provide information/clarification about the peer review process now that we have adopted our new structure. It is CAPA’s intent to continue posting these messages periodically as the cycle progresses.

CAPA has reviewed one appointment and forwarded its recommendation to the University Librarian. There is an expectation that more appointments will come through.

 8. Task Force to Investigate LAUC-LA Diversity Task Force (Costa)

Debe asked for comments on the charge to the LAUC-LA Diversity Task Force. It was suggested that the task force be given a set deadline for the upcoming fall. Debe suggested that she will ask for a mid-year report and a final report will be due for the Fall Assembly.

9. Other Business

There was discussion about a mentoring program. For example, Irvine has a mentoring group for new librarians. Debe will call for a task force to investigate this question. We are facing a large number of retirements, so there will be more new librarians on campus. There used to be a formal program of campus tours with LSA. LAUC-LA might ask for a focus group of newer librarians to see what they need – orientation vs. mentoring. The Program Committee might be the group to handle this.

10. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m. without objection.

Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Lewis
LAUC-LA Secretary

Enormous thanks to Debe, Kris, David and Keri for submitting their notes.