-
LAUCI ExBd Meeting
Mon, 4/29/02, 1-3pm, ML110

AGENDA

1. Nominations/Elections Committee and Elections calendar

2. Call for Library Council meeting agendas - process

3. Inviting Patty Iannuzzi (Associate University Librarian and Director — Doe/Moffitt) to UCI -- program specifics

4. Revision of Acad Personnel Procedures (see email from JKaufman below)

5. Other issues

6. Next LAUCI Meeting Agenda Mon, May 13, 2002

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Revision of Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians
Date:
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:51:49 -0700
From:
Judy Kaufman <kaufman@lib.uci.edu>
Organization:
UC Irvine Libraries
To:
lib_lauci@lib.uci.edu

To: LAUC-I

Our Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians call for an annual review of the procedures leading to revisions as
appropriate (p. 61). While we have not done this in the past due to the changing delegations and the uncertainties of the union
negotiations, beginning this year we shall be reviewing and revising them annually. Steve MacLeod, Chair of LAUC-I, and I
have developed a process described below for the annual review and revision.

The past two Library Review Committees have submitted comments and suggestions, and we will continue to ask each LRC to
do the same annually. Based on those suggestions, suggestions individuals have made to me, and my own observations of the
process, I am proposing a number of revisions, which are described in the attached Word document.

I am requesting LAUC-I members to review my proposals, send me comments on them, and also recommend other changes
that you think are necessary. Please send these to me by May 20th.

I will then produce a revised Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians, using the tracking mechanism in Word, for
distribution to all of LAUC-I by June 1st. At the July 8th LAUC-I meeting, LAUC-I will review the revised Procedures,
provide input, and make recommendations on them. The University Librarian has final approval authority.

Judy Kaufman

Proposed Revisions Document

CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE AUL, ADMINSTRATIVE SERIVCES
TO THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL PROCEDURES FOR LIBRARIANS
(page references are to the relevant sections of the current Procedures)

There are a number of changes that must be made in order to be consistent with the full delegation of decision-making to the UL, the current MOU, and the new Salary Scale. In addition to those mandated changes, the following revisions are proposed:

MINOR CHANGES
1. RI must notify AUL/AS with ten days of the call when the RI , after consultation with the supervisory AUL, decides to conduct a review after the normal service period at step has resulted in a decision for "No Action" but before the normal interval between reviews has elapsed (p. 17)
2. If no factual résumé is provided by candidate and there is a Secondary Supervisor, the Secondary Supervisor shall submit a letter to the RI without having seen a current factual résumé. (Current procedures neglect to state what the Secondary Supervisory should do.) (p. 22)
3. Position profile(s) for the Criterion One period under review should be supplied to UCI librarians from whom letters solicited (p. 32 h.)
4. Specification of seven calendar days for deadline to give redacted copies to candidates requesting them. (p. 39, 48, 54)
5. Specification of seven calendar days excluding university holidays (changed from five working days) as deadline for candidate to respond to file materials (p. 39, 49, 55
6. Specification of 14 calendar days (changed from ten working days) for additional information requests to be fulfilled. (p.46, 54)
7. Definition of "unfavorable decision" - which requires the UL to give reasons for the definition - as "no action, denial of career status, or termination." Changed term "favorable review" to "positive review action". (p. 57)
8. Termination added to all lists of possible actions. (p. 1, 2, 32 a., 36 c., 70)
9. Factual Résumé Guidelines added as an appendix
10. Review of procedures by Office of Academic Personnel removed. (p. 61)
11. Review of procedures by UC-AFT removed, because current MOU allows annual revision of local procedures in consultation with LAUC. (p. 61)

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
1. The AUL/AS informs each librarian to be reviewed of the period to be covered by the review record for each of the positive review actions for which the librarian is eligible. (p. 21)
2. "Ensuring that the review record covers the period encompassed by the review" and "inform the candidate about… the period under review" added to the RI's responsibilities (p. 28) [recommended by LRC]
3. If a former Review Initiator who is no longer employed in the UCI Libraries writes a letter, the letter is considered confidential (instead of non-confidential). (p. 29)
4. The Supervisory AUL shall be given the candidate's factual résumé, even if it is in draft form, before the meeting between the RI and the AUL at which the RI communicates to the AUL the review actions he/she plans to recommend. (p. 36) [recommended by LRC]
5. Signing of Certification Statement and Documentation Checklist moved to right before file sent to LRC, so that candidate only has to handle this form once. (p. 40)
6. Expanded instructions to the LRC about what to do if a candidate has asked for an LRC member to be excluded from his/her review committee. Intention is to ensure that, if the LRC rejects the candidate's request, an LRC member participating in a review will not know that his or her exclusion had been requested by the candidate. (p. 44)
7. Ad hoc no longer required when RI recommends accelerated actions. Currently an ad hoc is required if the LRC is not unanimously in agreement with the accelerated action. [issue raised informally by LRC] (p. 52)
8. When the RI recommends for career status or promotion:
Currently, an ad hoc is required if the LRC is not unanimously in agreement with the RI's recommendation.
Revised so that an ad hoc is not required if the LRC is unanimous, even if it is unanimously in disagreement with the RI's recommendation. An ad hoc would only be required for career status or promotion if the LRC is not unanimous in its recommendation. [issue raised informally by LRC - this proposed change should probably undergo some serious discussion, since it concerns career status) (p. 52)
9. Addition of table listing all the times that a candidate may request copies of evaluative documents in the review record, including instructions for how to request access, and what type of copy is provided