Present: Sylvia Curtis, Sherry DeDecker, Carol Gibbens, Janet Martorana, Bev Ryan, Eunice Schroeder. Also present were guests: Patrick Dawson, Secretary, statewide LAUC Executive Board; Lucia Snowhill, statewide LAUC liaison to RSC (Resource Sharing Group, UL Advisory Structure); and Cathy Chiu, member, statewide LAUC Committee on Professional Governance. Not present: Andrea Duda.

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

The minutes from 5 March 2001 were approved with corrections and will be posted to the Web.

The meeting opened with discussion of the evolving LAUC-SB laptop policy. It was decided that the old laptop (Toshiba) as well as the new (Gateway) laptop should have an agenda in CS&T, and Eunice will email Kim Philpot to arrange this. Also discussed was the question of priority usage of the laptops and policy for recalling a laptop that has been scheduled in CS&T but is needed by another LAUC-SB member for a higher priority usage (i.e., conference, workshop, etc.). This question will be taken up at a future date.

Most of the meeting revolved around a concern to develop our divisional response to the current in-progress evaluation of the effectiveness of LAUC representation on the various systemwide planning groups of the UL advisory structure. Patrick Dawson and Lucia Snowhill reported on feedback in response to a questionnaire distributed by the Task Force on LAUC Evaluation of the UL Advisory Structure. (Lucia serves on this task force.) The task force is to complete a report on the effectiveness of the structure, from LAUC's perspective, by this month. There was a low rate of response to the questionnaire. The purpose of LAUC representation on the various UL advisory groups was discussed. Lucia stated that the LAUC liaisons were represented in these groups so that line librarians could have input into UC systemwide administrative decision making. The liaisons report back to LAUC via reports to the fall and spring assemblies. LAUC reps are also to serve as conduits for the minutes of the meetings of these groups. Issues that can productively be addressed with regard to the liaisons are: (1) method of selection (submission of a slate vs. appointment by LAUC); (2) terms of service (overlapping or not? defined or not?); (3) charges; (4) communication channels; and (5) the function of the LAUC president within the UL advisory structure. The following points issued from the discussion:

(1) The LAUC president should meet regularly with the ULs or with SLASIAC (Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee).
(2) The LAUC liaisons should have written charges and clearly defined terms of office.
(3) Minutes from the meetings of the various groups should be issued in a timely way.
(4) LAUC should appoint the liaisons rather than submit a slate.
(5) The UL advisory structure is effective on the whole, and the presence of LAUC liaisons on all of the systemwide, ongoing planning groups is useful and should continue.

Cathy Chiu reported from the LAUC Committee on Professional Governance. Two primary questions currently before the committee are: (1) Should the distinguished step be de-coupled from the librarians' series; and (2) What should be the criterion for the distinguished step--specifically, should significant accomplishment in APM criterion 1 (APM 360-10b.1: professional competence and quality of service within the library) be acceptable as the basis of promotion to the "distinguished" designation? There was discussion of these questions. The opinion was voiced that the purpose of the librarians' series should be considered, and then policy with regard to the distinguished step should be reviewed in light of this purpose. A primary purpose of the series is to serve as a structure by which the university recognizes continued, outstanding contribution to the library and the university over the course of a librarian's career. Those at the top of the series, but not yet having attained "distinguished" status, are some of the most experienced librarians in the system, and it is reasonable to expect that they would be eligible to receive merit increases for their continued valuable service. Yet the series as currently configured, with a so-called barrier step, may be seen as contrary to this purpose, because its effect is that it prevents these accomplished professionals from receiving reasonable rewards for their contributions.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.