LAUC-SD MEMBERSHIP MEETING
Minutes November 23
Price Center Davis/Riverside Room 2:30 p.m.
Present: L. Abrams, L. Barnhart, P. Brueggeman, K. Cargille, L.
Claassen, R. Coates, K. Creely, S. Galloway, C. Graham, R.
Gustafson, J. Hanson, C. Haynes, C. Hightower, M. Horres, C. Jahns,
E. Kanter, R. Lindemann, K. Lindvall-Larson, K. Lo, G. Lowell, P.
Mirsky, A. Prussing (Chair), B. Renford, R. Ringler, J. Sih, B.
Slater, S. Starr, D. Talbot, E. Valdez, R. Wang, T. Weintraub, B.
Westbrook.
CAPA Vacancy
A. Prussing announced that K. Cargille has been elected to
fill the vacant term, which expires with the 1993/94 year.
CAPA 1992/93 Summary Report
Susan Starr gave a summary report of the committee:
Continuing CAPA members this year were Susan Starr and Doug
Stewart. New members were Beverly Renford and Sharon Anderson.
A total of 29 librarians were reviewed this year, 7 at the
level of Assistant Librarian, 12 at the level of Associate, and 10
at the level of Librarian. There were 10 promotions, 12 merit
increases and 7 cases in which there was no change in step. 8
individuals received Career Status. There were 7 cases in which
the University Librarian's decision differed from the action
recommended by the review initiator, and 7 in which CAPA's
recommendation differed from the action recommended by the review
initiator. These figures do not include temporary appointments.
A total of 15 Ad Hoc Committees were required this year, probably
an all time high.
CAPA has prepared a list of issues arising from this year's
process, and these will be discussed by the membership today.
CAPA Issues from Review Cycle 1992/93
B. Renford summarized areas of discussion that have been
ongoing among 1992/93 CAPA, 1993/94 CAPA and University Librarian
G. Lowell; Lowell was introduced and was asked to offer his views
on the review/promotion process. He arrived at UCSD near the end
of the cycle with little notion of the process. Important elements
in learning about the process have been his involvement over the
spring and summer and his meetings with outgoing and incoming CAPA
members. A summary of his expectations and observations follows:
- He is looking for staff who take pride and joy in their work
and who strive for a high level of professional contribution.
- Choices in where to put energy should lie with the individual,
whose responsibility it is to explain/justify/defend those
choices; activities should relate to the job.
- Goals/objectives are important because the process of setting
and attempting to meet them has high value in establishing
strategies, setting priorities, adjusting to short-term
pressures, and defining long-term direction.
- The review process must be streamlined. Currently, an
inordinate amount of time is invested in the process, and we
should look for ways to eliminate unnecessary steps and
documentation without compromising the efficacy of the
process.
Lowell invited questions and comments from those assembled.
Q. How does the decline in support (i.e., travel funds) for
professional activities affect the promotion/review process?
A. The balance between wants and resources is delicate. We need
to be equitable among a varying group of librarians, weighing
and considering expectations against differing levels of
professional development. Enough options abound for
librarians at all levels to contribute and to grow regardless
of financial support. The greater difficulty lies in how peer
committees assess specific activities. While travel is
important, we must weight the value of travel relative to
limited funding, and valuing travel highly if funding doesn't
support it may not be appropriate. Evaluating portfolios must
take the limitations of downsizing into account. Library
administrators seem more ready to make this adjustment than
LAUC reviewers may be.
B. Renford then led a discussion of issues outlined in her
memorandum "Issues from review cycle 1992/93" (November 22, 1993)
[see attached]:
Issue 1: Should a member of CAPA continue to be disqualified from
serving on CAPA if they have contributed documentation to the file
within the past two years?
Discussion: Major conflict occurs when the department head is
also a CAPA member. Simply contributing a letter, as chair of
a committee, for example, or by serving as a reviewer in a
previous year, ought not to disqualify a CAPA member from
deliberating over a current file.
Recommendation: A CAPA member should remove himself or
herself from deliberating over a file when his or her file is
being reviewed, when he or she has been responsible for
compiling the department head's review, or when he or she
questions his or her ability to make an objective judgement in
a particular case. Other contributions to the file are not
cause for removal.
Issue 2: Should unsolicited letters be put in the file? How can
these be distinguished from those solicited by the review
initiators?
Discussion: Unsolicited letters must be included within the
initial bundle of documents that are submitted to CAPA for
review; letters cannot be included once the file is submitted
to CAPA. Although unsolicited letters are not patently
identifiable as such, there is sufficient documentation in the
file about solicited letters to deduce which ones are
unsolicited. Streamlining would argue against including
unsolicited letters. A broader question concerns the role and
value of ALL letters within the file, and this question
becomes more acute now that redacting discourages candor.
Recommendation: Keep status quo, but give further
consideration before next year of disallowing unsolicited
letters.
Issue 3: Is the current level of direction given to Ad Hoc
Committees adequate? Are we certain that they will receive the
backfiles if they decide to consider promotion?
Discussion: More initial direction would save time for Ad Hoc
Committee members, who currently must guess or speculate why
the Ad Hoc was formed or must request backfiles that they
might have had on hand from the beginning.
Recommendation: CAPA will provide guidance by establishing
context for Ad Hoc Committees.
Issue 4: Should illness, maternity leave, etc., be mentioned in
review files. Should such absence be taken into review when
evaluating performance?
Discussion: Outside knowledge naturally comes into play, and
when such factors are not mentioned in the file, how can we
accommodate those two sets of information? Prolonged absence
can prompt the option of deferral. Reviewing a file solely on
its merit is fairer than taking health issues into account.
Communication between reviewee and supervisor/review initiator
is the key in determining whether to proceed or to defer.
Recommendation: The reviewee should discuss and determine
with his or her principal reviewer which option to pursue:
defer; submit a file that articulates mitigating conditions;
submit a file silent on these matters.
Issue 5: Now that all letters are redacted, are there any
constructive ways for supervisees to participate in review of
supervisors?
Discussion: If redacted letters aren't candid, are there
other ways of getting valuative information? If a file relies
heavily on such letters, there is a bigger supervision
question/problem to deal with.
Recommendations: none.
Issue 6: How can we change the calendar to reduce anxiety over the
review process?
Discussion: Decision letters should all be sent out at the
same time to reduce anxiety produced by reviewees' learning
that other colleagues' files have been decided. J. Hanson
distributed a draft calendar for the coming cycle. Adherence
to dates would contribute to making the calendar more
meaningful. Delayed letters often sabotage attempted
adherence to deadlines, and getting requests for letters early
improves chances for timely response. A strongly written file
makes letters less important, so a strongly written file is
desirable.
Recommendation: Librarians must make adherence to the
schedule a priority. Decision letters should be sent out all
at once if at all possible, and adherence to all dates on the
schedule will make this more likely.
Issue 7: What is the time frame for Ad Hoc Committees to meet to
consider peer review files? Should there be a definite minimum
time frame, e.g. within one week of being appointed to an Ad Hoc
Committee) for the committee to meet, and should those who cannot
make that time frame decline to serve?
Discussion: Ad Hocs sometimes make the process cumbersome,
especially where there is no disagreement about a file but
forming an Ad Hoc Committee is required. But there is
insufficient time during this cycle to consider how to reduce
the circumstance for which Ad Hocs might be mandated. As to
time frame, those who serve on Ad Hocs should accept this as
a priority responsibility and make time available to discharge
their deliberations on time.
Recommendation: CAPA should set dates and times for the
completion of Ad Hoc tasks, and Ad Hoc Committees should make
every effort to complete their charges on time. Jackie Hanson
will work with CAPA early in the process to identify which
files might need to have Ad Hoc's, and she will begin to
organize the committees ahead of schedule. The Ad Hoc
scheduling from a central location might also be tried this
year.
Issue 8: Should there be a timetable for sending out UL's letters?
Should they all go out at once?
Discussion: Pertinent points were made during discussion of
Issue 6.
Recommendation: Letters will go out at one time.
Issue 9: In cases other than normal merit increases, e.g. career
status, promotion, acceleration, should the department head
specifically address the APM criteria for the action recommended?
Discussion: Promotion files received during 1992/93 did not
appear appreciably different from advancement files, but they
should have done. Both reviewee and reviewer should meet in
advance to be sure that a promotion file looks different from
a review file. Department heads especially need to be
sensitive to this distinction and should insure the
construction of the file appropriate to the action being
considered. Few department heads are present to hear this
discussion, however.
Recommendation: Articulate these points of discussion to
department heads through these minutes.
Issue 10: What are the advantages/disadvantages of "lateral
promotion" - change in rank but no change in pay, e.g. Associate
Librarian VI to Librarian I?
Discussion: J. Hanson reported that only Berkeley has done
this, once, but their authority for doing so is unclear. This
would mainly apply at the Associate Librarian/Librarian
juncture, and it would provide a more reasonable possibility
for promotion than such a large transition as from Associate
Librarian VII to Librarian III, for example. Could a single
campus initiate this option? It might require UCSD or UC
sanction.
Recommendation: The membership expressed sufficient interest
at least to explore the possibility of such an option.
Announcements
Fall Assembly is next week, and E. Kanter will attend in place
of A. Prussing.
A second call for Statewide research proposals will be
broadcast in the next few days.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Richard Lindemann, SecretaryDate: November 22, 1993
To: LAUC-SD Membership
From: Beverly Renford, Chair of CAPA 1993/94
Re: Issues from review cycle 1992/93
Issue 1: Should a member of CAPA continue to be disqualified from
serving on CAPA if they have contributed documentation to the file
within the past two years?
Background: The procedures require that members of CAPA disqualify
themselves from service if they have provided documentation to a
review file other than as a member of CAPA within the last two
years. This limitation was probably designed to insure an
impartial CAPA. However, the effect is that members of CAPA are
routinely disqualified from files, so that the makeup of CAPA is
not consistent from one file to the next. At the same time,
continuing members of CAPA routinely review the same file twice
during their two year term. Is the limitation on service
desirable?
Addendum: In the past, members of CAPA could not serve on an Ad
Hoc Committee for a file they had reviewed in the previous two
years, because you cannot serve on an Ad Hoc Committee if you have
contributed confidential documentation to a file for two years.
Now that the CAPA report is no longer confidential, this
restriction presumably no longer applies.
Issue 2: Should unsolicited letters be put in the file? How can
these be distinguished from those solicited by the review
initiators?
Background: The first question has been cleared up. Apparently,
there was a statement omitted from the Academic Review Procedures,
Academic Series (November 1989) that addresses this. The following
statement will be included in the revision of the procedures that
are almost ready for distribution. The statement will read:
Unsolicited letters received during the review period regarding the
candidate's performance may be placed in the file by the candidate,
the immediate supervisor, the Department Head or a member of Ad
Con, but must be included as part of the initial review file. The
candidate will see these letters as part of the Department Head's
review. The issue of how to distinguish these letters from those
solicited by the review initiators still needs to be discussed.
Issue #3: Is the current level of direction given to Ad Hoc
Committees adequate? Are we certain that they will receive the
backfiles if they decide to consider promotion?
Background: The formation of most Ad Hoc Committees are
proscribed, e.g. promotion, career status, advancement to Librarian
V or termination. Ad Hoc's will also be formed "in cases where a
request for formation of an Ad Hoc Committee has been made by the
Candidate, the Department Head, an AUL, the University Librarian,
or CAPA."
When CAPA requests an Ad Hoc to be formed, the Ad Hoc is not
provided with any direction. Example: CAPA feels that a person is
deserving of promotion, but that was not the department head's
recommendation. CAPA requests that an Ad Hoc be formed to review
the file for purposes of promotion. The Ad Hoc may guess that CAPA
is considering the action of promotion, but nothing in the file
provides this background to the Ad Hoc. Does the Ad Hoc need more
guidance?
Regarding the backfiles issue: Since the original department head
recommendation was not to promote, the backfiles would not have
been provided. When the Ad Hoc receives the file, the committee
may or may not request the backfiles as part of the deliberations.
Issue #4: Should illness, maternity leave, etc., be mentioned in
review files. Should such absence be taken into review when
evaluating performance?
Background: Long or frequent periods of absence can affect the
substance of a review file, sometimes causing a file to be weaker
than it might otherwise be. Although CAPA and/or the Ad Hoc
Committee may know about these circumstances from other sources, if
they are not mentioned in the file it is not a factor that has been
considered in judging the file. Should this be considered in
evaluating the file?
Issue 5: Now that all letters are redacted, are there any
constructive ways for supervisees to participate in review of
supervisors?
Background: In the past supervisees have been asked to contribute
to review files of supervisors. Letters from supervisees are now
available in redacted form to the supervisor. Will supervisees be
willing to write frank assessments? Is there any other way for the
supervisee to participate in the review?
Issue 6: How can we change the calendar to reduce anxiety over the
review process?
Background: For a number reasons, the review cycle has lengthened.
Reasons for delays include the files being turned in late, letters
not received in a timely fashion, and some Ad Hoc Committees taking
a number of weeks to complete their review. Should we set a more
realistic calendar to accommodate the longer cycle or are there
some ways of tightening up on aspects of the cycle that would keep
things within the current calendar?
Issue 7: What is the time frame for Ad Hoc Committees to meet to
consider peer review files? Should there be a definite minimum
time frame, e.g. within one week of being appointed to an Ad Hoc
Committee) for the committee to meet, and should those who cannot
make that time frame decline to serve?
Background: As mentioned earlier, Ad Hocs have taken weeks to
complete their reviews. This has really hampered the work of CAPA
and made it impossible to meet the calendar deadlines.
Issue 8: Should there be a timetable for sending out UL's letters?
Should they all go out at once?
Background: The level of anxiety seems to increase when letters
are sent out one or two at a time. It would seem that a set date
for the letters to be distributed might ease the tension.
Issue 9: In cases other than normal merit increases, e.g. career
status, promotion, acceleration, should the department head
specifically address the APM criteria for the action recommended?
Background: When files are treated as routine advancement files,
it is difficult for CAPA and/or Ad Hoc to justify the
recommendation for promotion, career status, etc. The department
head needs to make a case for the action being recommended. What
is the best way to make sure this is done?
Issue 10: What are the advantages/disadvantages of "lateral
promotion" - change in rank but no change in pay, e.g. Associate
Librarian VI to Librarian I?
Background: When a person is at the high end of the Associate
Librarian range, promotion must be made to Librarian II or possibly
Librarian III. There are some cases where the person has a strong
enough file for promotion at the lower end of Librarian, e.g.
lateral promotion, but the file isn't strong enough for promotion
at the higher levels of the Librarian rank. The lateral promotion
may not bring a pay increase, but it does award the person with a
change in rank.