4. Interim administration plan and AUL recruitment (Munoff).

Interim plans:

• Munoff referred to 1999-12-10 e-mail memo concerning interim arrangements as still being the basis under which we will proceed.
• Question was asked whether anything has changed since that e-mail? What priorities might administration be setting aside to make time for this AUL search? Munoff responded that nothing has changed drastically at this point. As far as priorities that might change, he has nothing specific in mind at present and was more interested in just alerting staff that we may not be able to do business as usual during this interim situation. This was meant as an FYI to library staff that they may need to question things as they come up and make decisions to put off some things until after new AULs are in place.
• Munoff wondered whether any LAUC-I members have observed gaps thus far? No one had anything to report.
• Question asked about the course of the in-process budget process? Munoff stated that he had received no instructions yet from EVC, who has indicated that the schedule will be similar to last year: a January-March timeline to get budget proposal to EVC. Munoff noted that we are in midst of new process and this year may be more of a coping mode than he would prefer, but that the budget proposal he submitted last year was a multi-year proposal to serve as context for this year's request, which will probably focus more on specifics, rather than on any broad changes. He indicated that he thinks there will be plenty of time for budgetary priority setting, though this may be more ad hoc than he would like. Priority setting will be the main responsibility of Library Council and will hopefully the time impact will not be so great on those outside of Library Council.
• Confirmation requested that, unlike the AUL-less divisions, requests for professional development support for R&I division should still go through Susan Lessick. Kaufman confirmed that this is so.
• Kaufman noted that Payroll/Personnel will have to lower priorities on some other things like reclassifications and other recruitments, which will go slower than usual in light of the AUL searches and librarian reviews, both of which have top priority.
• Question asked whether or not other division have other divisions have made prioritization decisions in the interim/absence of AULs? Questioner noted that it would be useful for divisions to do some prioritization information sharing along the lines of that done by Payroll/Personnel. Munoff will encourage division and department managers to communicate things that they anticipate dropping in priority to the entire library via e-mail.

• Munoff announced that he will be sending out an e-mail message to lib_all today or tomorrow to update on this.
• Question raised model of recent UCB AUL search. Munoff stated that he is not sure he'll be following exactly how UCB pursued their multi-AUL recruitment all at once, but noted that he has communicated with UL Lowell at UCB.
• All three AULs will be recruited simultaneously; plan is to have new AUL's here this summer.
• Munoff wants all interviews to be full ones and to make sure that all library staff have opportunities to interact with candidates.
• All advertisements going out have a "first consideration" date of Feb. 15, 2000. Munoff stated that he will shortly begin work on convening a screening committee to assist with reviewing applications and deciding who will be invited to campus for an interview; will use one screening committee for all 3 positions, which he will chair himself.
• Munoff also stated that he welcomes staff input throughout the interview process. S
• He speculated that speed in this process will come in the shortening of the process for assessing candidates and picking interviewees.
• Interviews will probably be back-to-back and be pretty solid throughout mid-March to mid-April. Munoff reminded LAUC-I members that we all need to make this a priority on all library calendars.
• Kaufman noted that plans are for us to move very quickly in processes leading up to and after the interviews. She stated that UCB had reserved conference rooms and booked hotels prior to selecting candidates in order to speed up process, but was not certain yet whether or not we would adopt that approach.
• Munoff noted that we will want to be thinking about some of the organizational questions that we've been dealing with in the context of who the candidates are and what their strengths and weaknesses are. We have the opportunity to be flexible about AUL assignments.
• Question was asked whether any thought has been given to faculty involvement in search? This is of especially critical importance for collections slot and the mid-March/mid-April intersession needs to be factored into planning if faculty are to be involved. Munoff noted that faculty involvement will be invited during interviews; their input will be welcomed; but that he is reluctant to schedule slots specifically for faculty due to the tight time frame and the potential for minimal participation.
• Question asked regarding flexibility for potential reorganization: how will you mesh prior staff suggestions with those of individuals who apply and are seriously considered for AUL positions? Munoff stated that he feels it'll have to be a judgement process and in response to the candidates themselves. We will need to take into consideration the totality of all the potential candidates; there won't be a formulaic approach.
• Question raised as to whether or not the job ad will make it to ALA; should LAUC-I members attending ALA be recruiting while there if the opportunity arises? Kaufman suggested referring interested people at ALA to the ad on our web site. GM will be talking to library directors at ALA regarding nominations of good candidates.
• Question asked whether screening committee will have different responsibilities from the search committees we're used to? Munoff clarified that the screening committee will only decide who gets interviewed, and will not be involved in the selection of successful candidates.
• Question raised regarding how library staff feedback will be taken: all at once at the end or the process or after each wave of interviews or after individual candidates? How can we best make assessment during a very rapid process? Munoff noted that we'll all have to be very organized! He hopes to have input on each candidate as they come through with individuals on the library staff engaging in a summary process at the end. He noted that part of an evaluation is comparison among candidates, but as important is individual assessment for each candidate, regardless of the overall comparison. The primary consideration will be looking for very best people; organizational considerations will be secondary.
• Questioner wondered what does "best" means? Munoff provided the following, not exhaustive, list: intelligence, communication skills, organizational skills, analytical skills, knowledge of certain key areas in libraries, conceptualization skills.
• Munoff indicated that he would welcome nominations from any one in staff; will include specifics on how to go about this in his forthcoming e-mail.
• Munoff reiterated that there will be ample opportunities in the interview process for feedback from library staff, but that the final decision on who to hire will be his.
• Question asked whether or not he will be asking for advice or assistance in screening comments from staff and from other sources? Munoff indicated that at this point he is not sure how staff comments will be shared.
• Questioner wondered whether each candidate will be interviewed by the same people? Will this only be a presentation atmosphere? or will there be structured questioning of candidates? Munoff anticipates some appropriate groups meeting with candidates.
• Questioner wondered whether those groups will be directed to develop set of structured questions to ask candidates? Munoff stated that this depends on the nature of groups and what would be appropriate for them.
• Questioner wondered whether there will be leaders of these groups? Munoff assumes they'll have lead person. He also indicated that he will plan to attend many of those sessions.
• Questioner wondered if incoming AULs will have a role in designing organizational analysis? Munoff stated that they could, depending on where we are in dealing with these organizational issues. He noted that processes don't halt when AULs come and that they need to be prepared to participate in this process and for possible changes in outcome of their assignments. They must be prepared to be as dynamic as we are in dealing with the issues of organization that are before us.
• Question regarding the composition of the screening committee? Munoff asked for suggestions; how representational should it be? He suggested that the degree to which the screening committee will be representational is up in the air, but that he is certainly striving to represent the entire UCI Libraries staff. He reiterated that it needs to be a small- to modest-sized group that can move quickly and that he wants to have people who he thinks can do a good job. He is happy to hear suggestions regarding this.
• Questioner wondered if screening committee will have a role after the interviews? Especially in terms of compiling data from feedback on candidates? Munoff anticipates Personnel office staff in taking a lead on data compilation.
• Questioner wondered if interview process can be developed fairly soon so that key interview groups have time to develop consistent questions across candidates; this seems historically to be a key thing in interviews here? Munoff noted that the approach we traditionally use here is different than he has encountered elsewhere. Use of a set group of questions puzzles him? Kaufman noted that we've been moving toward a more conversational style of questioning and not exact questions. There is a structure of broad areas to cover so that it isn't ad hoc.
• Questioner wondered who, in the absence of a search committee, takes responsibility to make sure that all requisite areas are covered? Kaufman noted that the final recommendation won't be made by a group, but rather by the UL. The screening committee can help to coordinate the interview process and be responsible for coordination of areas of questioning among candidates.
• Questioner stated that groups that are going to be involved need to know well in advance that they're the groups that will be involved. How will decision be made about which candidates to ask which questions to? Munoff noted that we will interview specific people for specific positions, so all candidates won't meet with the same groups and get asked the same set of questions.
• Questioner wondered if Munoff expects reports out of these group meetings from individuals or as a group? Munoff responded that either seems fine depending on timeframe of process and what is possible. He wants to be certain that there are a variety of forums for staff meetings with candidates.
• Munoff wonders if it might be good for LAUC-I to meet with candidates in organized meeting of some sort, though he is also concerned that we not have a lot of redundancy in these meetings. LAUC-I may be a good forum for intangible issues that might not get raised in other forums during interviews.
• Munoff indicated that he has as yet made no decisions on size or content of screening committee.
• Question was asked whether non-academic staff be on screening committee? Munoff answered yes.
• Questioner wondered what role the LRC will play? Munoff said that he will be talking with LRC about this shortly.
• Questioner wondered what the timetable was for appointing the screening committee? Answer: soon.

• Kaufman began with a reminder: this is still a proposed salary scale and transition plan that hasn't yet been approved by the Office of the President (OP) or the union. She cannot at this point speculate about implementation at UCI if and when it is approved.
• Questioner wondered if the union and the OP are looking at plan? Kaufman noted that it is on table as part of current contract negotiations (starting shortly). She reiterated that there are formal procedures under which management deals with the union and that this will have to be put before union in a formal way.
• Question raised about the meaning of "at the individual's next scheduled review" on the Transition Plan grid? Kaufman stated that next scheduled review means exactly what it says. Lengthy debate about equity and the issue of when a librarian go up for promotion or merit increase after having served the requisite amount of time "at step" and going through at least one mutually agreed upon "no action" review, and whether or not going up, for example, in the year immediately following a mutually agreed upon "no action" review after serving the requisite time "at step" constituted a accelerated review. Many LAUC-I members have concerns about how this will be interpreted and implemented and both Kaufman and Palmer acknowledged that they will take these concerns under advisement and raise them in appropriate forums in the future.
• Kaufman reiterated that interpretation and UCI implementation has to await formal approval by OP and acceptance by union.
• It was also noted that it was most appropriate at this point to direct questions, concerns, and comments regarding the transition plan to LAUC's representatives in these negotiations with the OP: Patsy Inouye (pcinouye@ucdavis.edu), Kari Lucas (klucas@ucsd.edu), and Heidi Hutchinson (heidi.hutchinson@ucr.edu). The more people they hear from, the more effective it will likely be in having some of these concerns addressed as the revision of the Librarian Series goes through the final stages of negotiations. LAUC-I members with concerns about the transition plan document might also contact UCI's union representative, April Love (alove@uci.edu).
• Questioner wondered if the LAUC board is the appropriate place to centralize concerns regarding the historic variety of implementation of policies and practices concerning review of members of the Librarian Series at the various UC campuses and desire to see this restructuring implemented as consistently as possible across all campuses? Wilson and Palmer agreed that LAUC was an appropriate venue for airing those concerns and agreed to bring them up with the LAUC board.