Appendix 2

LAUC-I
LIBRARY REVIEW COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT
2000-2001

Joan Ariel, Chair
Collette Ford
Judy Horn
Tim McAdam

LIBRARIAN REVIEWS

The LRC participated in 27 librarian reviews during this year, an extremely high number. Six of these were 1999-2000 reviews for Librarian IVs and Vs (old scale) who had previously received No Actions and, with the restructuring of the salary scale, were now eligible for merit increase reviews. Of the total number of reviews, one was an Assistant Librarian, three were Associate Librarians, and the remaining twenty three were at the Librarian rank.

The process included the appointment of four Ad Hoc Committees requested by LRC to assist in reviews for appropriate actions including career status, promotion and Distinguished Status. When Ad Hoc Committees are required or, in the view of the LRC, needed based on the proposed recommendation, the LRC forwards a list of potential members to the University Librarian. As part of this process, the LRC continues to recommend and value highly the participation of at least one librarian from another UC campus on each Ad Hoc Committee; ideally this librarian represents the professional specialty of the librarian under review. In addition, we make every attempt to recommend at least one librarian at the same rank as the librarian under review.

The phased review calendar helped to facilitate timely reviews and a welcome distribution of workload over the 4-5 months of active LRC work and deliberations. In addition, the LRC greatly appreciated the dedicated work of Lillian Gates to keep us apprised of changes and schedule adjustments so that we could plan our work accordingly.

LRC members take turns drafting the LRC letter to be added to each review file. To assist us in writing these letters and to provide models for future LRCs, early in the year we developed UCI Libraries: LRC Letters Guide, a working document to provide content and language for consideration in drafting LRC review letters. This document is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to offer guidance and suggestions for possible consideration, inclusion and/or adaptation by the LRC member drafting a recommendation so as to have some consistency in approach. We found this document quite helpful to our process.

Finally, the LRC developed a list of issues, questions and recommendations for librarians under review and for review initiators. The recommendations relevant to upcoming reviews were included in the meetings on the 2001-2002 review process presented by Judy Kaufman on September 17 and 18, 2001.

Additional questions and recommendations presented for discussion with the University Librarian and the Associate University Librarian for Human Resources include the following:

Questions and Clarification:
1. What mechanism can be developed for LRC to provide direct and individual as well as group feedback to Review Initiator(s) and librarians?
2. How best to employ/balance comparisons among and between librarians at same/similar rank? Need for continuing discussion and clarification of expectations of senior librarians, i.e., all librarians at Librarian rank. Also of movement through Librarian rank.
3. How best to handle/evaluate part-time librarian positions in Criteria 2-4?
4. In the view of LRC, a number of Review Initiator and AUL letters still may well be much more positive than actual performance warrants. Also need discussion and clarification of expectations of each other in writing peer letters. Many remain insufficiently analytical and critically evaluative. How do we change this culture?
5. Questions arose related to activities in Criteria 2 and 4 that do not relate to Criterion 1 responsibilities.
6. Need to further clarify CDL and systemwide activities. For example, membership in Criterion 1, but leadership or publications in Criteria 2, 3, or 4?
7. Need to reiterate administrative travel criteria for Criterion 1 activities, but also clarify questions related to multiple dimensions of single activity, perhaps both Criterion 1 and 2?
8. Clarify placement of activities like contributions to InfoMine, an independent "publication" initiative based in another UC campus but with an audience beyond UC. Criterion 4?
9. Need to reemphasize/clarify expectations as "citizens" of the library, beyond narrow scope of particular positions.
10. How do we assure that expectations of review initiators as review initiators are better articulated, understood, and employed in assessment of that dimension of their work.
11. How many librarians have requested redacted copies of LRC (and Ad Hoc) letters?

Recommendations:
12. (Re?)clarify relationship of annual plans to reviews process?
13. Advance review of potential ad hoc committees for the year with consideration of available/recommended "pool" of members and optimum assignments.
14. Further consideration of composition of ad hoc committees attentive to action proposed and position and rank of librarian (e.g., one ad hoc had 2/3 department heads and no librarians at rank of librarian under review).
15. Facilitate compilation of UC-wide list of all librarians with rank and position.
16. Copy LRC on all letters of appointment to ad hoc committees.
17. Greater care in return of confidential review documents to librarians (e.g., one librarian received attachments for other librarians).
18. APM 360 addresses LAUC consultation in recruitment procedures. LRC has a concern about appointment of search and/or screening committees over the past several years. Recommend that a full list (5 years?) be compiled of all librarians who have served on search committees with the goal to better balance if not equalize opportunities (and workloads).

Librarian Appointments:
The LRC also reviewed and commented on three appointment files during 2000-2001.

PROJECTS

Factual Resume Guidelines:

These were developed in 1999-2000 and implemented on a pilot basis for 2000-2001. The LRC facilitated a review and discussion of these at the May 14, 2001 LAUC-I General Membership meeting. The membership offered a few suggested changes for consideration, but overall appeared appreciative of the guidelines and found them helpful.

LRC actively offered to consult with any librarians on the development of their factual resume. One librarian requested this consultation with Ariel and Horn who assisted her/him in reviewing and revising her/his factual resume to better represent activities and accomplishments in conformance with the new guidelines.

LRC will offer a workshop for librarians on developing factual resumes at the beginning of the 2001-2002 review cycle.

Position Profile Guidelines: Following up on recommendations from earlier years, the LRC participated on the Task Force to Develop Guidelines for Librarians' Position Profiles charged to standardize descriptions of duties and to "address the appropriate ways to include expectations for activities in Criteria 2, 3, and 4 in position profiles." We worked intensively from mid-May through July and Task Force Chair Judy Horn submitted the final draft to Judy Kaufman on August 6, 2001. As of October 1, Judy Kaufman was reviewing for recommendation to UL Munoff.

Annual Plan Guidelines: The LRC reviewed the draft Annual Plan Guidelines in November 2000 and forwarded questions and recommendations to Library Administration on December 1, 2000. Judy Kaufman replied, "I think all of the revisions that the LRC have made are excellent." The Annual Plan Guidelines were adopted on April 9, 2001.