From: LAUC-D Ad Hoc Peer Review Documents Review Committee (PRDRC)
Re: Completion of Part I of the charge
The LAUC-D Ad Hoc Peer Review Documents Review Committee (PRDRC) has met twice to complete the first part of the charge due January 30, 2001. We did our work cognizant of your resolution passed December 13, 2000. It states:
“Relevant sections of the APM and Appendix E of the Contract are identical for the current review cycle. The criteria for review are therefore the same for represented and non-represented librarians. Everyone should refer to the appropriate set of documentation throughout the review process.
It is recommended that the current C-9 document be followed for represented and non-represented librarians for the year 2000. Also, since the contract is retroactive to 1999, it is recommended that the above statement apply to 1999 reviews."
The Committee interpreted the resolution to mean that all represented and non-represented librarians, who are being reviewed in this review cycle, should be reviewed under the same criteria as it is stated in C-9.
For the practical purpose of carrying out this year's academic personnel review process, the document we call C-9 will suffice for both groups of librarians, the represented and the non-represented, because right now there are few substantive differences with regard to the review process. The intent of bargaining was that there would not be any differences. If there are any discrepancies which come up during this review cycle, those discrepancies should be brought to the attention of the General Library Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services who will immediately communicate them to the Chair of LAUC-D so that any problems may be remedied in a timely manner.
For represented librarians, Article 4 (Process for Merit Increase, Promotion and Career Status) of the Memorandum of Understanding as well as Article 28 (Waiver) and its companion Appendix E (Applicable APM Sections as of 7/1/00) contain the authoritative language which now supercedes the APM language which exists in C-9. Copies of these pertinent documents will be provided to the represented librarians, Review Initiators, the LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review Board and any others who may need this information.
For the review cycle, which will end in December 2001, the process will probably be the same. Work is being done to revise the documents, which express the process for all librarians.
The Peer Review Documents Review Committee offers the following statements to help all LAUC-D members understand the actions of the current review cycle.
1. Librarian IV’s who had a regularly scheduled review completed at the end of December 1999, will be reviewed again for merit action so that they can be considered for transition to the new scale. The candidate’s review packet (or Academic Review Record) shall not be revised for this subsequent review. Only the recommendation may be changed. The Committee discussed the implications of not allowing changes to the packet. We do not believe that the lack of changes will affect the LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review Board’s ability to make a recommendation. We assume a “no-action” review packet fully records the Librarian IV’s previous three-year accomplishments. However, if the Review Board finds that they need additional information in order to make a recommendation for an action, we remind the Review Board that it is within their scope to request additional information. The Review Board has the authority to request additional information if needed under APM 360-80 (j) and MOU Article 4 (C) 15. We also believe it will be important to review the Biography Form and its Annual Supplement very carefully. These reviews will follow the procedures outlined in C-9 at the point where the candidate can agree or disagree with the recommendation, providing a statement if he/she disagrees.
2. Criteria for a one step merit action from Librarian IV to Librarian III (Librarian IV transitional) should rely on the criteria as stated in the current Library Policy Statement C-9 and Appendix E to Article 28 of the MOU. This action should be considered a normal one-step merit increase commensurate to the higher ranks of Librarian. C-9 states “It is also expected that, with advancement in rank, the level, scope, and quality of a librarian’s total contribution will rise accordingly.”
3. Criteria for a one step merit action from Librarian V to Librarian IV (Librarian V Transitional) should rely on the criteria as stated in the current Library Policy Statement C-9 and Appendix E to Article 28 of the MOU. This action should be considered a normal one-step merit increase commensurate to the higher ranks of Librarian. C-9 [Local language associated with 360-17b(1)] states “It is also expected that, with advancement in rank, the level, scope, and quality of a librarian’s total contribution will rise accordingly.” Additionally, C-9 [Local language associated with 210-4(3)e] states “The concept of growth and achievement in assessing the performance of a librarian in progressing through the ranks is affirmed.”
5. The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 12, Section A. 2 states the University and the UC-AFT agreed that for fiscal years 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02, each librarian shall remain on his/her current review cycle with the exceptions noted in Sections A.3 and A.4. Section A.3 allows a Librarian V, who has received at least, one “no action” review at Step V, to be reviewed one year early. Section A.4 allows a Librarian IV, who has received at least, one “no action” review at Step IV, to be reviewed one year early. These reviews should not be considered accelerations, as stated in C-9, [Local Language associated with 360-8a(1)]…after the initial three-year review after reaching Step IV of Librarian, an out-of-sequence review should be conducted as a normal promotion [sic] review, not an acceleration.
6. The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 12, Section A.5 is being interpreted by the University and the UC-AFT to mean that a Librarian IV may request consideration for the distinguished status, if they 1) have had at least one “no action” review at Step IV or 2) are scheduled for a review action this year. If a Librarian IV’s next regularly scheduled review action is effective July 1, 2002 and has not had at least one “no action” review, then an action this year will be considered as an acceleration. Additionally, a Librarian IV, whose next scheduled review action is effective July 1, 2002, may remain on the scheduled review cycle and request consideration for distinguished status next year.