Librarian Review Process: Orientation and Q&A CAPA/Library HR August 2, 2018 2017: original slides by M. Colby 2018: revised by C. Craig, W. Garrity

Agenda Types of Reviews DOA: Delegation of Authority Forms, Documentation, Mentoring What Librarians Are Reviewed On MIV: My Info Vault Review Process: Overview Suggestions for Your Review Framework for Evaluation (Bill)

1. Types of Reviews (main types, not everything possible) MERIT Asst & Assoc Librarians: reviewed every 2 years Librarian: reviewed every 3 years PROMOTION Assistant to Associate, Associate to Librarian CAREER STATUS RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Positive, No Action (performance issue/negative), No Action Neutral Standard or Greater than Standard Types of ACTIONS: Merit: “merit increase is advancement following a positive review” [Art4, E1b] Promotion: “promotion is advancement to the next highest rank”/level [Art4, E1c] Career Status: “successful completion of a suitable trial period in potential career status” [Art4, E1a] Actions can be: Positive: get expected advancement based on your work (1 point/year) [Art4, E1b] No action do not get expected advancement bcse of problems with your work [Art4, E1d] (performance issue/negative): No action top salary point Librarian rank, or of Assoc Libn (if not seeking promotion to Libn) Neutral: Standard get expected advancement based on your work (1 point/year) [not written down where I looked, expect this is contract] Greater than more than (1 point/year) Standard [not written down where I looked, expect this is contract]

2. DOA: Delegation of Authority DOA indicates who has approval authority (the “last word”) As of: July 1, 2017 University Librarian (Reviews/Recommends) Standard merit, no-action neutral, off-cycle standard merit, deferrals (CAPA) Greater-than-standard merit, contested actions, top of scale, no-action less-than-positive (CAPA, AFPC) Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (Reviews/Recommends) Promotion, Career status, Termination (CAPA, AFPC, UL)

3. Forms, Documentation, Mentoring Governing Documents MOU, APM, Annotated MOU Articles 4 & 5 Review Forms/Documentation Calendars, Review Documents MIV Entry Mentoring: LAUC-D Mentorship Program From old wiki: CAPA Best Practices (old, some is useful) Documentation/forms that govern librarian reviews: on LAUC-D Libn Review Documents page Some changes made this year: 1) How Admin posts Documents they are responsible for: As of this year: Admin posts in public Google Drive, We link to relevant folders instead of directly to documents Resulted in some changes to the page 2) Staggered Salary Scale: All original salary scales still posted. We added staggered version, same info, different format: easier to use, can see progression thru ranks, numbered points ALSO: HR  New format for review calendar Mentoring Program: Demonstrate: -Create a profile: -Find a Mentor: Individuals currently serving on CAPA cannot serve as mentors (about the review process) for people being reviewed

4. What Librarians Are Reviewed On See: Annotated Article 4 and Annotated Article 5 a. Professional Competence and Quality of Service within the Library Your SOR (Statement of Responsibilities) Service/work done for the library And one or more of the following: b. Professional Activity outside the Library c. University and Public Service d. Research or Other Creative Activity See Annotated Article 4 and 5 for more, good review. a. Professional Competence and Quality of Service within the Library [Art 4 C2a] Your SOR, and service/work done for the library. Must be excellent b. Professional Activity outside the Library [Art 4 C2b] includes activity in professional and scholarly organizations; library and other professional meetings/conferences; awards, fellowships, grants; teaching and lecturing; editorial activity. c. University and Public Service [Art 4 C2c] includes activity in University committees appointed by the Chancellor, UL, or other university administrative officers; other University committees, including departments, schools, student organizations, thesis/dissertation committees d. Research or Other Creative Activity [Art 4 C2d] authoring, editing, reviewing or compiling books, articles, reports, handbooks, manuals, and/or similar products which are submitted or published during the period under review. The evaluation of such research or other creative activity should be qualitative and not merely quantitative and should be made in comparison with the activity and quality appropriate to the candidate’s areas of expertise. Note should be taken of continued and effective endeavor.

5. MIV: My Info Vault Where the review dossier lives Biography Form Annual Supplement an old name for your review info (the 4 areas librarians are reviewed on) UC/Acad Affairs eliminated form in 2/2018 (revise our documentation??) Please enter comprehensive info for the entire review period in MIV NOT a separate list for each year of the review period PROMOTIONS: please do not simply upload all previous reviews (100+ pgs.) Statement of Responsibilities (SOR) Personal Statement DOSSIER: is the standard/preferred term for your review (this is what MIV uses) Previous phrases: packet, review packet, file, review file Review info/dossier: Info is now entered in and shared with relevant parties in MIV. Used to be done with Word documents. Biography Form Annual Supplement Documentation probably needs some revision, including terms used by MIV. Future project?? For Lib HR and LAUC-D? MIV Data Entry: Please all info for the review period once, do not separate by year & repeat, or upload previous reviews (for promotions) .  For example: imagine committees you are on that span multiple years. Enter appropriate info for all committees you were on for any part of the review period. Please do NOT make a separate individual listing by year REFER TO PROMOTIONS: understand why people do this, can be tedious to review and make recommendations on… WG: Question: can folks be encouraged to provide a unitary, comprehensive C.V. and not just a supplement that a reader has to graft on to another document? It’s piecemeal. Dossier: WG: Maybe we can try to standardize on “dossier” – or at least understand it means the same thing as “packet” or “file,” since “dossier” is what MIV uses.

6. Review Process: Overview Major Steps for Librarians being Reviewed 2018 Due Dates CALENDAR July 2 (due out by) FORMS DUE to RI: July 13 Reference Solicitation, Disqualification, Supervisor/Lead Comment LIBRARIAN PART DUE in MIV August 27 RI DRAFT/FINAL RECOMMENDATION to Libn Sept 14/Sept 21 Non-Concurrence, if applicable Sept 28 AUL Comments Due (optional) Oct 26 Libn review/respond to AUL comments Nov 2/Nov 8 To CAPA Nov 15–Jan 18 (~7 weeks) To review bodies and person with delegation of authority CAPA has: Nov 15-Jan 18 = 9 weeks But comes out to about 7 weeks, without holidays/holiday closure

7. Suggestions for Your Review Concisely and compellingly explain what you did: its impact/why it matters Stick to the review period Detail your contributions e.g., don’t just say you chaired a committee state what the committee accomplished, how it had an impact, clearly state your role Spell out acronyms Don’t assume familiarity with librarianship, your work, or its context Personal statements: encouraged!! Be concise, use to tie packet together Make persuasive argument Don’t regurgitate info given in Annual Supplement  Work with your RI Ask if RI wants a brief summary of your work Letters of Reference: RI decides which ones to request, discuss

8. Framework For Evaluation (Bill)