Informal notes
LAUC-I General Membership Meeting
18 October 1999
Librarians' Review: Expectations and Procedures

Sees this as dialogue, a start at talking about issues.

Likes the existing 2-track review process: administrative/supervisory and peer. Would like to see this maintained. Previously the peer and the supervisory tracks were separated and only converged at the EVC review level. We want them to be separate, but not to the point where they look like two unrelated things.

Process needs to be as standardized as possible; however, we need to remember that we're dealing with individuals and that judgement, analysis, and critical thinking skills have to be employed beyond the standardized process. Wants to preserve an approach that maintains acknowledgement of librarians as professionals.

Question 1: Please explain how you apply the professional criteria and qualitites outlined in APM 210-4-3-(3)(a)-(d) and in Academic Personnel Procedures for Librarians p. 23.

Question 2: How do you see the balance between Criterion 1 and Criteria 2-4? How is that balance affected as a person moves through the ranks?

Criterion 1 is the most critical and fundamental. What is the balance balance between 1 & 2/3/4? If performance in 1 isn't satisfactory, performance in 2/3/4 can't overcome this problem. Sees criteria 2 through 4 as an enhancement of a librarian's performance in 1.

Question 3: Do you have differenct expectations for librarians in different positions or divisions? Particularly, as it applies to the fulfillment of Criterion 1 vs. Criteria 2-4?

Not sure what is meant by differing expectations for different people in different positions? Even with different people doing what is basically the same job, there are a variety of factors that are different. We need to have expectations that are based on each individual and the job that they're in.

Question 4: Should every librarian who achieves career status also be able to achieve the rank of Librarian V? How do you determine if a librarian is appropirately qualified to be considered for the move past the "barrier step," Librarian IV?

If this queries whether we should make judgement on Librarian V qualifications at point of giving everyone career status: the answer is no. Doesn't like notion of quotas or numbers for Librarian V; it shouldn't happen artificially. Feels that criteria as they now exist indicate that it isn't meant to be the next "natural" step after Librarian IV. Feels like criteria for Librarian V need to remain pretty rigorous and that it won't be something that every librarian will be promoted to.

Question 5: How do you plan to share review outcomes? Are you open to having a person make an appointment with you to discuss the outcome of their review?

This past year communication was through letters, but also happy to talk with people.

Workplans: do we want to do something like this regarding outcomes of reviews? Outcomes of reviews should be reflected in a workplan for the coming review cycle (refering to question 6). Direction of someone's next review should be primarily guided by review initiator. Guidance on what development should be should come from evaluation, which comes from a number of people (administrative supervisory track and peer track). Sees fullness of review as something that all can benefit from in developing a workplan leading to next review. Feels need to emphasize both positive and negative things come up repeatedly in reviews.

Concerned that we aren't playing 'gotcha'. Part of ongoing dialogue initiated by review initiator to talk about how job is changing and how individual in it can better deal with that change.

Question 7: How has or will the delegation of the review process to the Library affect: a) You. b) Library Personnel Office. c) LRC?

Delegation has generated discussion like the one today, which provide an opportunity to think differently about process.

Ad Team talking about adding staff in library personnel to manage process; EVC's office says it takes them about 1/4 FTE at critical periods to get process of reviews underway.

LRC: UL meeting with both last year's and this year's LRC. LAUC may want to think of ways that committees can be involved in process. One example: how can LAUC-I give support to new/young librarians regarding the review process? Possibilities for workshops, brown bags, 1:1 mentoring, sample materials (setting some sort of standard for the Factual Resume, for example)?

In the recent revision of the manual, we did put the provision that there would be annual review of the process between the UL and LAUC-I.

During reviews, issues come up that need us all to be involved in discussing and finding a resolution. The expectation is that LAUC-I will be active.

Not a lot has gone on in the past in teaching librarians how to review/supervise other librarians, especially to insure consistency. Mentoring needs to happen all the way through people's careers, especially centering around publishing and research projects, e.g, facilitating combining efforts together to benefit both individual librarians and the institution itself.

Clarity and support need to happen for both people being reviewed and for supervisors themselves. Mentoring, training, classes perhaps organized by personnel office and LAUC-I working together?

What is UL's concept of workplans? Also, how as an organization, would LAUC-I and Personnel incorporate workplan idea into procedures?

Thoughts (don't want these to be seen as prescriptive):

Would workplan emanate from LAUC-I? Perhaps with guidelines from Ad Team to incorporate ideas that UL has, then brought to LAUC-I for discussion? Workplan would supplement existing position description? Perhaps UL and AUL for Personnel and Administration could draft guidelines as basis for further LAUC-I discussion?

Will this be for all of us or something only used to address problems?

May sometimes be short, but good to have workplan for everyone. May end up being just a reaffirmation of what the person has been doing, but that is fine.

Good plan to discuss at LAUC-I. We don't want to do workplans in a vacuum. During discussion perhaps a good time to identify upcoming plans for leadership opportunities for librarians at UCI?

Does notion of workplans appeal generally for further exploration?

Based on experience it has been helpful in shaping career focus at various points. Needs to be flexible.

Could you talk more about the 2 track review comment; what did you see as problems, conflicts? For peer track, how much information about individual's position profiles, etc. should you expect when you're asked to evaluate someone that you don't work with on a daily basis? How did peer and supervisory track enhance or conflict? How might workplan help?

Workplan

A workplan , then, might be a way of bringing together the two tracks of the administrative/supervisory assessment and the peer assessment of a person's performance? Did you see a discrepancy in this year's reviews?

On many of the criteria, prior to delegation, I was only seeing the administrative/supervisory side and not the peer review side. UL denied access to that perspective in writing his/her review. UL's review can, post-delegation, be more comprehensive and not rely only on EVC to point out discrepancies between administrative and peer tracks of the review process.

So, a workplan basically happens once librarian has received word of review outcome from UL. Would workplan need to be seen by UL's office? Would there need to be any official administrative approval?

No definitive thoughts on this issue. Would AUL need to see it? Some additional review might be needed when workplan involves changes in assignment, commitment of human/fiscal resources. Still sees review initiator as being primarily responsible for managing the process.

Useful to have someone who knows what ultimate goal of workplan is. Might be that AUL would be an appropriate person to have input.

What are your emphases for criteria 2-4?

Balance and emphasis changes depending on position or appointment. 2-4 are important because they give support to recognition of someone's being a better librarian; benefits both person and institution. Requires flexibility on how that is done; choices need to be made depending on workload of individual. Guidance should come from both review initiator and also through colleagues. What is LAUC-I's role in formalizing this part of things?

Choices in 2-4 range haven't in the past been interpreted consistently. Can we, through this process of developing workplans, develop consistent interpretations of the 4 criteria and the balance between them?

That is something we can address, but perhaps something that can't be solved. The process inherently has judgements from a number of individuals and a wide spectrum of different interpretations of criteria. The workplan is a vehicle for 2 individuals to reach a joint understanding of criteria as far as one individual librarian is concerned. Don't want to make things too prescriptive so that it inhibits rewarding/recognition of indivdual initiative. Need to strive to strike that balance on the continuum of no consistency to being too prescriptive.

What sort of support would Administration be prepared to give to formalize support for librarians in striving to work on criteria 2-4?

Workplan seems to be a good way to match up individual's interests to departmental workload to insure that the support can be carved out to get it done.

What about sabbatical money for short-term support to relieve librarians to allow for criteria 2-4?

Lack of consistency was a major concern of last year's LRC. Some proposals will be coming before LAUC-I for consideration. Consistency in how we describe our positions, how we construct our factual resumes. Maybe there are some guidelines that we can have to encourage some consistency across the library. Going to take hard work to come to consensus about definitions for certain criteria while still recognizing that there will always be judgements and disagreements about those judgements.

LRC discussions within Libraries can now result in us making some changes.

Workplans may be done after review is complete, but perhaps prelimiary workplan could be constructed during the completion of the review?

See a need to keep them separate. The review looks backward and workplan looks forward. The danger is that we don't want to get them mixed up. Once you have a workplan, the next review has to be informed by that. Evaluation has to start with expectations and how they were fulfilled given circumstances. Workplan serves as a reference point or beginning point for the next review.

Concern about tightness of cycle for beginning librarians early in career.

Frustration also for librarians on 3-year review cycle; difficult to do workplan for 3 years, may need to be revisited annually during the cycle.

LAUC research grant forms have space for release time and someone to do your job when you're gone, though this presents issues that we haven't come up with good solutions for. How can LAUC-I work together to creatively come up with ways for librarians to free up time to do more professional development work.

Clarification re: workplans: do you envision input for bottom-up goal setting? How can we broaden base for evaluations and workplans? Can we get input from non-librarians in library setting for review of librarians?

Supervisor responsibilities, valuing supervision: how will you go about evaluating AULs? What assistance might they be given in setting goals?

UL currently thinking about this since all AUL's are up for review this year.

Concerned about 'gotcha' syndrome and don't want to play into that. At same time significant concerns about AUL's supervision and no way to address; no avenue other than meeting with UL, but that's already playing into the 'gotcha' syndrome.

Likes workplan/goal-setting process. Useful as a means from start to end of review cycle as a flexible set of understandings to be reviewed at times throughout the process.

Formal part of process is to insure things are happening and being documented, but the day to day interaction is much more important than the formal process.

Multiple AULs are often involved in some people's jobs; how does that play out in workplans and reviews?

Tension between standardization and flexibility. Another tension: we're academics but often evaluated as though we aren't. Would like to see greater standardization, especially in creation of position profiles. Workplan perhaps should go along with resumes to the peer who is asked to evaluate a person's performance?

I'm in favor of more information, but have to be careful with confidentiality, especially if workplan addresses deficiencies from prior reviews.

Position description describes criterion 1 (question raised as to whether or not that has ever been determined?). If position description does describe criterion 1, workplan could talk about goals in criterion 1 as well as those in 2-4. Need to make workplans positive documents based on intended accomplishments.

Of all reviews you saw, how did you feel about balance between criterion 1 and criteria 2-4?

No overall feeling that balance was out of whack one way or the other. One impression was a concern about how well UCI LIbraries was supporting 2-4. Wasn't clear that review initiators were clear on what was going on in 2-4 until the documentation came in? Are we coordinating this (2-4 responsibilities) as well as we could? Can we strive for better synergy?

This whole area of balance of 1 vs. 2-4 could use more discussion.