Librarians Association of the University of California, Davis


LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review Board

Annual Report 1997-1998

1. Board Members

Chair: Patricia C. Inouye, Government Information and Maps Dept.

Members: Carolyn Kopper, Health Sciences Library,Carol LaRussa, Physical Sciences Library ,Reve Rocke, Catalog Dept., Judith Welsh, Health Sciences Library

2. Activities

The Review Board met twice weekly from January through March, 1998 to makerecommendations for 26 performance evaluations. The Review Board also met, or the Chair acted on its behalf to review 6 temporary, part-time appointments.

The Review Board met with the Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services and the Academic Personnel Coordinator. The agenda for the meeting included a discussion of the need for confidentiality, and the calendar for completion of the work of the Review Board.

Issues which the Review Board would like the LAUC-D Executive Board to consider for discussion are:

  1. We request that the criteria for acceleration at Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarian and Librarian be explored. Some of the issues that we would like to be explored are: How should it differ at each rank and each step? What is the quality of performance that is worthy for consideration of acceleration?
  2. Library Policy Statement C-9, Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarian Series, (pg. 5) outlines that the University Librarian may solicit further information from the Review Board but it does not provide guidance for which this provision could be used. Does this section need clarification? Or further, does the Division want the Review Board consulted regularly when the University Librarian disagrees with the recommendation of the Review Board. It was indicated to us that it was desirable to have a packet continue to move forward. This indicates that the University Librarian would rarely seek additional information from the Review Board. What are the consequences of the current procedures?
  3. Library Policy Statement C-9, (pg.24) conflicts with the Academic Personnel Manual 360-80 (a) 2 in that the APM indicates a deferral must be submitted to "the divisional advisory review committee(s)." LPS C-9 indicates that a request for deferrals "are addressed to the University Librarian, with copies to the appropriate administrative Assistant or Associate University Librarian and the Library Personnel Officer. The University Librarian will forward her/his recommendation to the Vice Provostwho has final authority" We assume that a deferral is sent to the Academic Federation Personnel Committee. Deferrals are, then, only seen by the Academic Federation Personnel Committee. All other actions are seen by both committees. What are the consequences of this deviation from the norm?
  4. The Academic Federation continues its discussion with the Vice Provost Academic Planning and Personnel about the Equity Study. We would like to explore the possibility of disproportionate achievements that can not be explained by individual strengths and characteristics. To this end, we are inviting LAUC Incoming Chair Buzz Haughton to charge the Professional Issues Committeeto explore equity issues with respect to the librarians series.
  5. Reve Rocke has revised the index to C-9 and the annotated APM. Since it had not been revised for 10 years, she found a number of changes. The board could not ascertain how changes to C-9 and the annotated APM occur. We request that the LAUC Executive Board discuss with the Library Administration procedures for making changes to our documentation.

3. Statistical Summary

A. Total permanent positions: General and Law Libraries 52

B. Evaluation recommendations reviewed by APARB

Promotions: 4

Career status: 2

One-step merit: 12

Non-action plateaus: 9

Acceleration: 3

C. Change of review initiators recommendation: 1
D. Reviews returned by APARB to review initiator for additional information:  0

Return to LAUC-D Home Page