May 20, 2003
TO: Patsy Inouye
FROM: Jo Anne Boorkman, Chair
RE: Peer Review Documents Review Committee
Committee members: Ken Firestein, Karen Andrews, Barbara
Hegenbart, Patsy Inouye (ex
officio), and Sandy Vella (ex officio)
1) Review the document, which
consolidates the procedures and steps of the,
process for non-represented and represented Librarians, which was created
by Ken Firestein and make a final recommendation for its use.
The committee reviewed the document created by Ken Firestein that brings the C-9 procedures and the Annotated APM and Annotated MOU into one document with a Table of Contents. Part I Library Policy Statement C-9, Part II Annotated APM, Part III Annotated UC-AFT MOU Article 4 and Appendix E. The committee makes the following recommendations regarding this charge:
· Recommend that the consolidated document be accepted and titled: University of California, Davis, General Library, Peer Review Documents: Performance Evaluation of Appointees Reviewed in the Librarians Series (PEARLS)
· Recommend that the name of the Review Board be changed to: Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Advancement (CAPA). Rationale: The name change would be consistent with how other campus committees with similar charge are named.
2) Review the local language, which currently annotates the Academic Personnel
Manual (APM) and the Memorandum of Understanding
recommendations for additions, deletions or revisions to the local
language. In your review, take into considerations the Davis Division's
discussions thus far. Those discussions have touched on both the clarity
of the language and the current structure of our documentation.
The committee is still in the process of reviewing the local language. Review to date offers the following recommendations regarding the C-9 Procedures and forms:
· Recommend that the attached revision of the Disqualification Statement Form be accepted. Rationale: The committee thought that having the information on how the Disqualification Statement Form can be used was not easily found in the procedures. A librarian would be more likely to read the procedures and decide on a course of action when signing the form, by putting that information directly on the form.
· Recommend that the attached revision of the Checklist of Documentation be accepted. Rationale: The committee thought that the current checklist was confusing. It is unclear whi is supposed to initial and date the checklist.
· Recommend that the attached Checklist for Librarians with Salary Action Reviews 4/28/03 be added to the C-9 documentation. Rationale: Several members have commented that the current Procedures interspersing the Librarian and Review Initiator’s responsibilities was confusing. New librarians (and maybe others) would benefit from having a checklist of what a librarian needs to do in preparation for a normal review. The checklist refers the librarian to the C-9 document for specific information and information about exceptional review procedures.
· Recommend that the following clarification be added to the Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarians Series in the calendar of procedures:
Review Initiator Reviews candidate’s Reference Solicitation Form and Disqualification Statement Form…Reviews requests for letters, recommends other names if appropriate, then selects a representative sample from the existing list of names for reference solicitation. Review Initiator will provide a cover letter with instructions concerning the additions, deletions and content to be solicited. The forms and cover letter are sent to the AUL for Administrative Services. Rationale: Comments to the committee were that not all Review Initiators understood that they could solicit comments from others, in addition to or in lieu of those submitted by a librarian, and that they could further be selective about which references they requested be used. This new language clarifies the options available to a Review Initiator and provides instruction to the AUL as to what letters should be solicited.
· Recommend that the Biography Form be removed from the list of enclosures in a Review Packet. Rationale: The campus no longer requires that a Biography Form, either new or initialed, be included with review packets. This form could be eliminated from the packets for non-Represented librarians. It is still required for inclusion by the MOU for Represented librarians.
Consider whether the LAUC Position Papers should be
incorporated into our
local language or cited as an outside source of information.
· Recommend that the LAUC Position Papers be excluded from the C-9 local language. Rationale: The current LAUC Position Papers are dated. The LAUC Committee on Professional Governance is currently reviewing the Position Papers with the idea of revising them. It is not appropriate to add these documents to our current local documentation in their present form.
Several questions arose in the deliberations of this committee. The committee would like to hear discussion from the membership on the following topics:
· How do the salary scale notes apply to represented librarians? This note in an annotation in the APM and is silent in the MOU (see attached)
· Past Review Boards have recommended that Interim Reviews be discontinued. This committee is interested in hearing the merits and/or cons of continuing Interim Reviews.
· While consideration of accelerations has not been a problem at Davis, the committee noted several inconsistencies in how acceleration could be interpreted while reviewing the Annotated APM, Annotated MOU and Appendix E and the local language. Attached are the pertinent sections of the documents in question. When reviewing the attached documents, please note:
1) The MOU only defines 1) Promotion; 2) Merit and 3) Career Status (MOU Article 4 B. Definitions) It does not define acceleration.
2) The MOU Article 4 C. Procedures 5) allows a librarian to request acceleration within a review cycle (an early review). This is where the local language has been inserted.
3) Appendix E. III A. Criteria 2 Merit Increases and Promotions only refers to accelerated promotions. Promotions are defined as noted in #1. There is no mention in this section of acceleration within Rank.
4) The Annotated APM 210-4.d. (2) Assessment of Evidence specifically discusses acceleration within Rank. This is where the local language has been inserted. APM 210-4 e. Criteria (2) Merit Increases and Promotions: has similar language to the MOU. Local language regarding flexibility has been inserted here.
5) The committee identified three (3) times when acceleration has been considered and recommended at UCD: 1) review within a normal cycle, e.g. an early review; 2) skipping a step within rank at the normal review; and 3) promotion to the next Rank and step earlier than the normal sequence.
The committee plans to continue to review the local language and will provide an update, possibly with recommendations at the first Fall 2003 LAUC-D General Meeting.