1. Minutes of June 10, 2002 (draft - see attachment "LAUCI GM 6-10-02 draft") - 10 min.

2. Review of the Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians (APP-L) [J. Kaufman] (see information below and

attachment "list of changes") - 50 min.

3. MLS Requirement in Recruiting [J. Kaufman] (see 7/2/02 email from J. Kaufman) - 50 min.

As I wrote to you on April 26, Steve MacLeod and I are coordinating the an annual review of the Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians(APP-L). I sent you at that time a list of proposed revisions and requested comments. I received two comments and have now produced the "final proposed" revised procedures, using the tracking mechanism in Word, for you to review. At the July 8th LAUC-I meeting, LAUC-I will discuss the revised Procedures, provide input, and make

recommendations on them to me. The University Librarian has final approval authority.

I have re-attached the lists of proposed revisions for you to refer to as you review the Procedures. I especially draw your attention to nos. 7 and 8 on the list of "Substantive Changes" because these are the changes that could have the most impact on the outcome of reviews. No. 7 eliminates the requirement for an ad hoc committee when the Review Initiator recommends an accelerated action; no. 8 eliminates the requirement for an ad hoc committee for career status and promotions when the Library Review Committee is unanimous in its recommendation (even if the LRC unanimously disagrees with the Review Initiator). I would very much welcome and encourage a full discussion of these items at the July 8th LAUC-I meeting.

One of the goals in developing the original APP-L was for each librarian to only have to consult one source in order to find all of the policies and procedures that apply to his or her review. Therefore, as you know, each section of our current APP-L includes our local procedures as well as all of the relevant sections of the Academic Personnel Manual and the Memorandum of Understanding. In fact, the current APP-L contains every single sentence in both the APM and MOU that pertains to the review process.

One of the tasks that I faced in revising the APP-L was to incorporate the substantial changes in the MOU that pertain to the review process. As you may recall, the MOU that was in effect at the time the original APP-L was written contained a waiver that allowed most of the APM sections on librarian reviews to cover represented librarians. Therefore, the MOU had very little language on librarian reviews.

However, the current MOU no longer contains a waiver allowing represented librarians to be covered by the APM. Instead, the MOU now includes all of the librarian review policies that cover represented librarians. So we now have two completely separate source documents for our local procedures: the MOU for represented librarians, and the APM for Supervisors and

Managers. The actual content and meaning of the review policies in the MOU and the APM are currently quite similar, but the language used in the MOU is frequently not the same as in the APM, and there are also several administrative procedures covered in the APM that are not contained in the MOU at all.

I was and remain committed to the goal of each librarian only having to consult one source in order to find all of the policies and procedures that apply to his or her review. This principle of organization has proven to be very beneficial, I have received lots of positive feedback about it, and it has been copied at other campuses. The changes to the MOU made it difficult to continue to do this in a single APP-L. I began the revision process with the intention of maintaining one document for all UCI librarians, even though I knew that other campuses (Davis -http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/admin/C9/ ; UCLA http://staff.library.ucla.edu/staff/hr/libncall.htm ; Santa Cruz http://library.ucsc.edu/internal/personnel/papa/papa.htm ; Santa Barbara – under development) had found that they had to create two separate documents. However, the task was too complex, and I ultimately found that I could only make the manual work by creating two different versions, one for represented librarians, and one for managers and supervisors.