1. Annual Plan -- next steps in review

Attached is the report on the first survey conducted by the Academic Librarianship Committee. The ExBd received this report today and has not discussed it. Since the Annual Plan cycle for 2002/2003 is beginning now, with Annual Plans to be filed by the end of July, we would like to discuss and determine how best to proceed with the review conducted by Academic Librarianship.

2. Report on recent librarian review developments, for possible further LAUC-I discussion [Note: we set this aside at the last mtg because Judy Horn, LRC Chair, was not able to attend the meeting. Judy will be here Tuesday.]

• Review Initiators’ ability to view past reviews for current librarians who report to them.

• LRC’s and ad hocs’ ability to view past reviews for librarians under review, if relevant to the current review as determined by the University Librarian.

• AUL/AS’s ability to share the LRC’s recommendation for a completed review with the Review Initiator of the librarian under review.

3. Ethical/ownership/courtesy issues that can arise when librarians report outside the library about library projects (an issue brought to the AUL’s by a few individual librarians and which seems to be a good candidate for LAUC-I discussion)

4. Report on the Research Librarian recruitment

5. Shaping further LAUC-I discussion about the MLS as a requirement in librarian recruitment

June 21, 2002

TO: STEVE MACLEOD

CHAIR, LAUC-I

FROM: Julia Gelfand

Committee on Academic Librarianship

CC: Kay Collins

Barb Lucas

The Committee on Academic Librarianship was charged to conduct a survey on the experience LAUC-I members had in preparing and using the Annual Plan each member was expected to prepare and submit to their Review Initiator (RI) to reflect their work plans for July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002.

The survey was administered in May 2002 and generated a 26% response rate (11/43 librarians who submitted work plans). This low response rate may not be terribly accurate in how librarians as a full cohort group consider the experience. The survey also concentrated on those who created Annual Plans, and did not survey the Review Initiator's input into the process, which I believe is also very important to the goals and purpose of why we engage in this exercise.

FINDINGS:

1. Respondents came from R&I (5), C&A (3), TS (2) and one did not identify with a division
2. Work plans were initiated by 7 Review Initiators; 3 librarians and one case where both parties were named
3. 7 librarians indicated that document was signed and on file by due date of July 30 while 4 indicated that was not done
4. average length of document was 2pp
5. 6 librarians indicated that they were not asked to shorten/lengthen document; and 4 librarians noted additional focus or clarity for AUL was requested; 7 librarians said that they were not asked to rewrite for a specific audience and 4 were.
6. 60% of the respondents indicated that the basis of the Annual Plan was a combination of their Position Profiles and Special Projects in which they expected to be engaged during the year
7. 81% of the respondents noted that the scope of Annual Plan was Criteria 1 and 9 librarians said that it also reflected other Criteria, with two librarians indicating that it was only #1
8. 18% of respondents noted that their Plans included percentages of efforts; and 91% noted that specific goals were included and there were no responses that indicated what would not be done or addressed in the Annual Plan
9. 91% received fully signed annual plan from the Library Human Resources Office (LHR) and 27% said that the Plan had been reviewed once submitted - three librarians indicated that it had been reviewed either once, twice or at quarterly intervals
10. When asked whether the experience in creating this first Annual Plan was a collaborative and forward looking experience 45% said YES and 55% said NO.
11. When asked if the exercise could be characterized as useful/helpful 64% said YES and 36% said NO.
12. When asked if there was adequate input, 73% said YES and 27% said NO.
13. When asked to characterize if the RI was supportive of the librarian's vision 64% said YES and 36% said NO.

Seek more balance between RI's and my own perspective next time

Helped to arrange my thoughts about what I was doing here

Waste of time after 6 months what I'm doing bears little resemblance to

Annual Plan

CONCLUSIONS: With such a low response rate, it is clear that making any generalizations is difficult and perhaps not reflective of all of LAUC-I. However, there seems to be the need to follow up and review the Annual Plan during the year more than this survey found. There was not clarity that this was a collaborative and forward looking experience and yet some librarians seem still to be confused about how the Annual Plan fits in with other documents. The Committee thinks that with many new staff who will be writing their first Annual Plan in coming weeks, some attention needs to be paid to correct this confusion. Also, that Review Initiators should make sure that regular meetings take place between them and each of their reports so that additional clarity can be achieved about where some of the vagueness appears and that the Annual Plan is addressed throughout the year. It may be of interest to specifically see what Review Initiators' concluded about the first year experience.