Present: Joan Ariel, Jackie Dooley, Larry Heiman (recorder), Judy Horn, Steve MacLeod (chair), Pauline Manaka, John Sisson

Guests: Carol Ann Hughes, Judy Kaufman, Carole Kiehl, Gerry Munoff, Lorelei Tanji

Steve MacLeod said that the Academic Librarianship Committee had reported to the Executive Board that they did not get enough information or response from their first survey on annual plans to adequately access their implementation. Discussion of annual plans followed.

Judy Horn suggested possibly sending out recommendations on how the annual plans should be done by everyone. Joan Ariel said if there are inconsistencies in how administered this should be addressed. Steve recommended getting Review Initiators together to talk about differences. Gerry Munoff said that since the purpose was to be flexible the annual plans do not all have to be done exactly alike.

Carol Ann Hughes asked about the link of the annual plans to performance evaluations. Kaufman said they were not a formal part of the process. It was not necessary, but they could be referred to if relevant. Gerry said the annual plans were forward looking in anticipating what a librarian's goals were, while the evaluation process looks back at what has been accomplished. The annual plans were intended to foster communication between librarians and their RIs.

Joan suggested a need for clarification on the scope of the plans in order to achieve consistency. Gerry said the plans should cover Criteria 1-4. If a librarian intended to focus on certain elements to the exclusion of others, this should be indicated in his/her annual plan and explained why. Kaufman said the plans were not meant to be comprehensive, but to focus attention on certain goals for the year. Gerry said they should be as flexible as possible, unlike the review process.

Joan brought up possible adjustments to the plans. Gerry said there could be discussion of adjustments if individual assignments change. Steve said there is a perception of inconsistency and that a discussion is needed among RIs to share strategies on procedures. Gerry stressed that the most important element was not the forms, but the communication between the librarian and his/her Review Initiator.

A possible timeline for the review process was discussed. It is hoped that librarians and RIs will review the 2002-2003 annual plans during the middle of the cycle (around January). Then in February or March, the LRC could again survey the librarians and RIs when the process is more solidified and fresh on people's minds. The review should be completed in advance of the next cycle, by June 1, 2003.

Academic Personnel has issued a ruling that allows Review Initiators' access to past reviews for current librarians who report to them. A complete file of a librarian's past reviews will be kept on file in Library Human Resources while s/he remains an employee of the Library. This is already standard practice at other UC campuses. Kaufman wanted the ruling presented to LAUC-I membership for input on their concerns in formulation of an implementation policy by Human Resources.

Joan raised the issue as to whether this would involve a blanket opening of the files or if it would be limited for cause. Jackie said that management needed to clearly articulate why the new policy was desirable for them. Joan added that we needed to know how it could benefit all of us, why it could also be desirable for the person under review.

Kaufman will prepare a proposal to be presented to the membership explaining what Administration sees as the benefits. Jackie said it should be framed in context of the librarian review process and in the context of library continuity necessitated by changes in management.

• "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" was recommended that it be changed to read: LRC's and ad hocs' ability to view past reviews for librarians under review, if needed for full consideration to the current review as determined by the University Librarian. This is seen as something that would rarely come into play.

• AUL/AS's ability to share the LRC's recommendations for a completed review with the Review Initiator of the librarian under review. Kaufman is proposing she have the discretion to share the LRC recommendations with the Review Initiator. (It was mentioned that the librarian under review also has access to these recommendations). Currently, if the LRC disagrees with the Review Initiator and Gerry agrees with the LRC, he can consult with the RI but can't submit the full letter of the LRC.

These changes will be discussed in a meeting of the General Membership and there was also mention of possibly scheduling an additional meeting consisting of Review Initiators only.

3. Ethical/ownership/courtesy issues that can arise when librarians report outside the library about library projects. Steve said earlier discussion by the Executive Board indicated the sense that this was a management issue and not a LAUC issue and maybe could be dealt with in that way. It was decided that further discussion was necessary before taking the issue to the General Membership.

4. Report on the Research Librarian Recruitment. Steve will report on this in context of General Membership discussion of MLS requirement at July 8 meeting.

5. Shaping further LAUC-I discussion about the MLS as a requirement in librarian recruitments. There was discussion on what was meant by MLS degree or equivalent degree vs. equivalent work experience or subject expertise. Judy Horn said we need to address how peopled hired without a MLS degree would fit into the librarian ranks. Gerry said the key is that the qualifications are defined for the position and not the individual. Kaufman will work on a proposal to be discussed at the July 8 General Membership meeting.