ACADEMIC PERSONNEL ACTION REVIEW BOARD
Andrews, Librarian, Physical Sciences & Engineering Library
Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Marcia Meister,
Librarian, Government Information and Maps
Nichols, Librarian, Access Services
Librarian, Humanities/Social Sciences
Thompson, Associate Librarian, Health Sciences Library
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSIS
The Review Board met
with the Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services and the
Academic Personnel Coordinator for an orientation session as specified in
Library Policy Statement C-9.
This was an
unusually busy year for reviews because a Salary Scale Transition was approved
for implementation in 2001. The Review
Board’s workload was affected by the following factors:
- Librarians who had reached a
plateau point at the top of their salary range now had the opportunity for
a one-step merit increase under the new system. There were no “Non-Action Plateau” recommendations this year
as a result.
- Because the Transition was
retroactive to July 1, 1999, some Librarians reviewed during the 1999/00
year became eligible for movement in the series. Their Review Initiators revised their recommendations for
action, as appropriate. The revised packets were then reviewed by the
- Librarians who were at Step IV in
the old series, and those eligible for movement to Librarian Step III of
the New Series, had a unique, one-time chance to stand for the
distinguished step before it transitioned to a new point higher up the
salary scale. These reviews were
more time-consuming to evaluate.
- Review Board members had to refer
to three documents: the C-9 Local Procedures, and either the APM or the
MOU. It took time to locate and compare
the relevant passages for subtle differences in interpretation.
- Total permanent positions: General, Law, Bodega Bay and Veterinary
- Total Evaluations: 30
- Evaluation recommendations
reviewed by the APARB
Career Status: 1*
One-step merit: 25
status was given in conjunction with another action.
- Change of Review Initiator’s
- Reviews returned by Review Board
Review Initiator for additional information: 4
- Appointments Reviewed: (6 Career,
7 Temporary) 13
- Deferrals Reviewed:
- Disqualifications: 0
A. The Review Board recommends
streamlining the Peer Review process.
1. Consolidate Statements of
Primary Responsibility that have only minor changes.
Indicate dates when
changes in each responsibility were in effect, rather than submit a separate
Statement for each change
Statements are submitted for different time periods, highlight/underline or
indicate in some way where the changes are, so that Board members do not have
to read old and new Statements just to discern what is different between the
2. Institute an
optional career advice feedback form. Occasionally, Board members make positive
suggestions that could assist the person under review in planning professional
development activities that would further their career. Board members do not know if the candidates
ever receive this information. They
recommend having the option of an administrative form or letter, that could be
sent to the candidate, the Review Initiator, and the administrative file,
informing the candidate of the career recommendations made by the Review Board.
Interim Reviews for
Librarians with Career Status, unless requested by a Librarian. Other campuses do not do interim reviews.
4. Explore ways
to make the Review Initiator’s job easier. Other campuses have the candidates provide
an explication of their professional achievements, to assist the Review
Initiator in evaluating professional contributions beyond the primary job
possibilities that could decrease the amount of time required to prepare
evaluative comments by the RI.
- Reiterate the importance of
including data only on
activities that occurred during
the dates under review.
- Submit documentation by the stated
deadlines. Packets were due in
March, yet the Board received some packets in June. The difficulty that both candidates and
Review Initiators face in completing packets for submission lends support
to the need to streamline the process.
- Review Initiators or Candidates
should supply a Checklist of appended items, with each attachment
or exhibit numbered for reference.
- The Review Board should receive
explicit instructions with the name and position of the person to whom a
review should be returned for all non-General Library reviews.
B. Issues which need resolution:
- In the Statement of Primary
Responsibilities (SPR), some Librarians note the obligation to participate
in Criteria 2-4. Should this be
included? Most Board members
believe it should not be there, because the SPR refers to “on-the-job”
- There are no criteria for
evaluating the conferral of Distinguished Status in the MOU. LAUC-D could update and incorporate
LAUC Position Paper Number One or adopt similar wording into the C-9 Local
Procedures document until new statewide procedures are developed.
Chair, LAUC-D Academic
Personnel Action Review Board