June 11, 2004
To: Terri Malmgren, Chair
From: Jo Anne Boorkman, Chair
LAUC-D ad Hoc Peer Review Documents Review Committee
Re: Committee Recommendations carried over from 2002-03
Committee Members: Ken Firestein, Karen Andrews, Barbara Hegenbart, Pasty Inouye (ex officio), and Sandy Vella (ex officio)
A subcommittee (Jo Anne Boorkman, Ken Firestein and George Bynon (ex officio)) met June 10, 2004 to review the documents and report presented at the May 27, 2003 LAUC-D General Membership Meeting. The subcommittee reviewed these documents and edited them for consistency. Most of the issues for discussion have subsequently been resolved, with a review of the local language in the Annotated MOU and Annotated APM. The language in Article IV and Appendix E III A and E IV did not change in the MOU dated November 12, 2003 - August 30, 2006.
The following previously presented recommendations will need to be approved by the membership, incorporated into a revised document and forwarded to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel for approval by campus prior to The Call before they can be adopted for use by LAUC-D and the General Library in 2004-05.
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, II Annotated UC-AFT MOU Article 4 and Appendix E, Part III Annotated APM, Part. 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: LAUC-D 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 (MOU).
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 reviewed the local language and 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 who 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. Makes sure that all necessary boxes are checked and signatures obtained. If a disqualification is requested, then sends original of the Disqualification Statement Form and any relevant documents submitted by the candidate to the UL. Reviews requests for letters, recommends other names if appropriate, then selects a representative sample from the existing names for reference solicitation. Review Initiator will provide a cover letter with instructions concerning the additions, deletions and content to be solicited. Disqualification statement when no disqualification is indicated and Reference Solicitation form(s) with cover letter are sent to the Library Administrative Office. 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 Deputy University Librarian as to what letters should be solicited.
· Recommend that the Biography Form be removed from the list of enclosures in a Review Packet for non-Represented librarians. Rationale: The campus no longer wants a Biography Form, either new or initialed, to 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 (Article 4 C. 9) for Represented librarians.
· Recommend that the Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarian Series and local language in C-9 be updated to reflect current organizational titles, and Librarian Salary Scale steps. Rationale: C-9 has not been updated to reflect the New Salary Scale steps, nor the changes in the Library Administrative Office regarding who manages and processes librarian personnel actions. A global update of the Review procedures and local language has been made with the changes identified. Some formatting needs to be done to forms, including addition of a line for printed names to identify names, when signatures are required. (see accompanying document)
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.
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.