1. Review cycle
- Process went well
- 1st year review brought into the library
- Better LAUC-I input
Better communication
- Personnel Manual brought more clarity on a number of issues
- Better communication about the process that were not there before because of
delegation issues.
Timeliness is getting better
- Part of campus wide effort--CAP is pushing faculty
- New time-frame for us because of the contract: 9-month process. UCI had a long
process,
now needs to be down to 9 months to make us similiar to other campuses
Issue we are collaborating on with LAUC-I are going well:
- Criteria document
- Position profile
- Factual resume
- Other documents: annual plan
- LRC has done a lot of good work
What's missing? Anything you want to see people bring out?
- Need Reviewee to submit a qualitative evaluation of career and
significance of activities and not a checklist of activities -- how well someone is
doing in contributing to the quality of the library.
- Keep treating Personnel Manual as an organic document that can be changed and
improved upon
as
needed with
consultation.
LAUC-I input in review process. How can we give support to librarians under review?
- Orientations
- Role of LRC to give advice
- Samples
- Professional development committee workshops
- "Buddy sytem"/mentoring
- Special orientation is already given for 1st timers
- Workshop on how to write a letter for a colleague: good, constructive criticism
that doesn't affect working and collegial relationship.
How can we help Review Initiators?
- Workshops
- How to request a letter
- Discussion of letter culture; redaction is case law.
- Give review initiators continuous feedback on process; upward feedback and
constructive criticism
- Use annual plan discussions
- Looking to annual plans as tools to help people write better letters
by describing Criterion I activities better
- Annual plan not a required part of the review process; it's a communication
tool for improving performance and quality.
2. LAUC-I representatives to faculty senate committees
- Reporting
- Use formal appointment process
- Should all be elected?
- Outline, formalize responsibilities; bring back issues to Library; putting
yourself on the LAUC-I meeting
agendas when there is information to share
- Create structure to back people up and take advantage of opportunities
to serve
- Discuss how different senate committee representations relate to
specific jobs in the Library
- Some representations are just to the wider campus, some represent the
Library
- How is the Library served by LAUC-I representation?
- Future LAUC-I meeting to discuss this issue.
3. Future positions
- AUL vacancies -- AUL for tech services, interviews this week and last week
- Development -- difficult UCI wide but trying
- Preservation and Access department heads -- have had talks with access and with
broader library.
Preservation being examined and redefined, production portions are being done and
issues are being handled well
- Publications -- interested in changing the focus to audience and what information
they need. This would be a change in the current environment, then staffing
accordingly
- Instructions services -- a job description is being done
- Head of Collections -- on hold, for the discussion in the
context of the AUL search, a clear explanation of the respective roles for the AUL
and the Head. Forum could address this
- Optimistic about getting new positions.