Annual Report 2000/2001




Chair: Karen Andrews, Librarian, Physical Sciences & Engineering Library

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Marcia Meister, Librarian, Government Information and Maps

Members: Gail Nichols, Librarian, Access Services

Opritsa Popa, Librarian, Humanities/Social Sciences

Jerrel Thompson, Associate Librarian, Health Sciences Library




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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 00/01 Board.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.



  1. Total permanent positions:  General, Law, Bodega Bay and Veterinary Libraries: 55
  2. Total Evaluations: 30
  3. Evaluation recommendations reviewed by the APARB
Promotion:                2
Career Status:           1*
One-step merit:       25
Non-Action Plateau:   0
Acceleration:            2

No Increase:            1

*Career status was given in conjunction with another action.


  1. Change of Review Initiator’s Recommendation:        5
  2. Reviews returned by Review Board

to Review Initiator for additional information:          4

  1. Appointments Reviewed: (6 Career, 7 Temporary)  13
  2. Deferrals Reviewed:                                              0
  3. 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 


·        If separate 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 two.


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.


3.     Eliminate 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 responsibilities.  Investigate possibilities that could decrease the amount of time required to prepare evaluative comments by the RI.


5.     Emphasize current procedures:

  1. Reiterate the importance of including data only on activities that occurred during the dates under review.
  2. 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.
  3. Review Initiators or Candidates should supply a Checklist of appended items, with each attachment or exhibit numbered for reference.
  4. 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:

  1. 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” responsibilities.
  2. 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.


Respectfully submitted,



Karen Andrews

Chair, LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review Board