LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review Board
Annual Report 2002-2003
Karleen Darr (Chair) Monographs Department
Nancy Kushigian (Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect) Conservation & Preservation Department
Peg Durkin, Law Library
Bob Heyer-Gray, Physical Sciences and Engineering Library
Mary Wood, UC Center for Animal Alternatives
The Review Board had a moderately busy workload this year. The Board reviewed 19 salary action review packets and prepared recommendations to the University Librarian, the Dean of the School of Law, and the Executive Associate Dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine. There were an unusual number of promotions, accelerations and career status cases that affected the Review Board’s workload. In addition, seven new appointments were reviewed during the period September 1, 2002 through August 29, 2003.
The Review Board requested clarification on length of time at initial appointment that qualifies a new librarian for salary review action. The AUL for Administrative Services explained that there is no guiding principal in the Memorandum of Understanding. On grounds of equity, the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel and Library Administration concur that new librarians who work more than half of the review cycle are eligible for full review.
The Review Board discussed the question whether some review initiators are more rigorous and demanding of their librarians than others. We agreed that the Board’s role as protector of equity across the units is effective, as it can compensate for variation among the departments.
The Peer Review Documents Revision Committee asked the Review Board for comments on whether we found the annotated C-9 Peer Review documents (UC Davis local documentation) helpful, or, whether having three separated documents was adequate. The Board responded that the merged version was not provided in the member binders and so we could not comment. The Board primarily used the two C-9 documents for Represented Librarians, and Non-represented librarians. The Board finds there is no substantive difference in the documentation although language and organization of the documents varied. In contrast to the previous year we made moderate use of both the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the Academic Personnel Manual (APM). We used the documentation because we had several cases that were reviews for promotion and/or acceleration. While the C-9 language was identical for acceleration between Represented and Non-represented, the language in the MOU and APM were different. We were somewhat confused by this difference and decided to rely on the C-9 documents.
Career Status: 6 (given in conjunction with another action)
One-step merit: 10
Non-Action Plateau: 0
Acceleration: 6 (included 3 promotions)
No Increase: 0
Change of Review Initiator’s Recommendation: 4
Appointments Reviewed: (4 Career, 3 Temporary) 7
Deferrals Reviewed: 0
Review Initiators should note whether a candidate for a salary action is represented or non-represented since different documentation applies.