December 1996 Minutes

LAUC-SD Membership Meeting -- Minutes
December 17, 1996
Seuss Room

Present: Leslie Abrams, Linda Barnhart, Susan Berteaux, Peter Brueggeman,
Karen Cargille, Lynda Claassen (chair), Kathy Creely, Trisha Cruse,
Tammy Dearie, Joanne Donovan, Sam
Dunlap, Tami Echavarria, Crystal Graham, Ruth Gustafson, Jackie Hanson,
Christy Hightower, Susan Jurist, Elliot Kanter, Deborah Kegel, Richard
Lindemann, Phyllis Mirsky, Becky Ringler, Reinhart Sonnenburg, Ginny Steel,
Judy Thompson, Esteban Valdez, Kathy Whitley (recorder), Vicki Williamson.


Tammy Dearie introduced Judy Thompson, the new Corporate Associates/PLUS


1. Fall Assembly -- Lynda, Ruth, and Ginny attended the LAUC statement Fall
Assembly in Berkeley earlier in December. Richard Lucier gave a talk about
the California Digital Library Project. R&PD Committee is arranging for him
to come to UCSD in late January or early February to talk to us about the DLP.
Myron Okata had no really positive reports on salary issues -- there will be a
2% COLA increase in October 1997, and a 3% step increase for faculty; no VERIP
announced (Jackie noted in discussion that there have been many VERIP rumors,
that she has checked with UCOP and there is no official announcement, but
pointing out however that for previous VERIPs there was not much advance
notice); there will be no steps added to the librarian series, no stipends for
administrators. Refer to email report for more details on Assembly. Next
Assembly is May 8-9 at UCLA.

2. R&PD Committee -- Kathy C. reminded members that a second call for
statewide research project is out, with proposals due January 7 to Alice
Perez--$10,000 is available. Local grants are also available. The
application forms and information are on the LAUC Web site--

3. Ad hoc Committee to Review the Many Voices Report with Regards to
Sexual Orientation Issues -- Sam Dunlap had circulated the full report via
email (attached) and handed out Appendices A and B. Appendix A, the UC Davis
Principles of Community statement was adopted by statewide committee and Sam
provided the UC Berkeley statement for comparison. Sam outlined the history
of the Ad hoc Committee and their proposal to statewide LAUC including action
items with respect to Sexual Orientation issues in all areas of library
activity and the name of the LAUC Committee on Cultural Diversity. The report
will be distributed for comments by statewide LAUC and sent back to statewide
chair for approval. The membership voted in favor supporting changing the
name of the committee to LAUC Committee on Diversity to reflect including
issues related to sexual orientation, disabled people, etc. , and in favor of
the proposal as circulated by Sam.

4. Accelerated Advancement -- Richard and Peter presented a draft document
elaborating the APM language governing accelerated advancement and promotion
(attached). The major point of clarification involves whether accelerated
advancement/promotion requires exceptional performance in both criterion (a)
and one or more of criteria (b-d). Also at issue is the different range of
contextual information about the candidate available to the department heads,
CAPA, the Ad Hoc Committees, and the AULs/UL to allow comparison with peers.
After much discussion, a vote on the proposal was taken, with 13 in favor of
adoption and 9 opposed. In view of the closeness of this vote and in view of
the number of people present relative to the entire membership, it was decided
to leave this issue open for further comments and discussion by the membership
via email to Richard and to revisit it at the next membership meeting.

Summary of discussion:
Ginny--in paragraph 2, only CAPA members and AULs are comparable, not the
Richard -- guide to CAPA as well as membership; full context of people at all
steps not available, but supervisors have those immediately available to
them; however really no one has full context except CAPA.
Peter-- attempt to apply same criteria as normal advancement for accelerated
Need for general clarification--guidance on what is accelerated.
Peter-do in 1 year what others have in 2 years
Deborah-- quality vs. quantity issue
Kathy C.-- vary year to year?
Richard-- feels that exceptional should be rare
Elliot-- even a prescriptive approach with examples doesn't give the full
context for a decision.
Lynda-- Ad hocs for all of these? -- Ad hoc sees only the one file, not the
other candidates.
Jackie-- concerned with diminishing role of ad hocs
Peter-- both areas (A and B,C,D) required for looking at acceleration in the
same way.
Susan J.-- equity
Phyllis-- level of contributions; compare with proposed level. Is this
possible only at the AUL level because other files are not available?
Tammy-- has there been a shift upward so acceleration is eventually
Deborah-- Can ad hocs not compare mentally with others whose files they
haven't access to?
Jackie-- list of people at the target level is probably okay, but not access
to their files.
Joanne-- feels a list would be detrimental.
Kathy C.-- what if no ad hoc for acceleration -- APM requires.
Karen-- A is the most important; do others as relevant.
Reinhart-- B,C,D with A -- not possible.
Crystal-- accomplish same in a shorter amount of time
Deborah-- just one part of A exceptional -- no
Reinhart-- raising the bar everywhere.
Kathy C.-- we're raising the bar ourselves
Jackie-- what to tell new librarians of differences between the documentation
and APM
Peter/Richard--Elaboration of APM
Susan J.-- separate discussion of B,C,D overemphasis in light of PPD, etc.

Meeting adjourned at 3:30 for holiday refreshments.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Whitley



Position Paper on Accelerations

Accelerations, comprising merit increase decisions made earlier than
the prescribed periods of service at specific ranks and steps in the
Librarian Series, or merit increase decisions reflecting advancement
of more than one step in salary, are governed by criteria specified
in APM - 360-10 and APM - 210-4-e [pertinent sections are printed
below]. Because guidelines for accelerations are offered within the
broader context of advancement and promotion criteria in general,
LAUC-SD interprets the phrase "accelerated promotion is possible if
achievement has been exceptional" [APM - 210-4-e-(2)] to apply
jointly to criterion (a), "Professional Competence and Quality of
Service Within the Library" [APM - 210-4- e-(3)], and, to the extent
they are relevant, to criteria (b)-(d) [APM - 210-4-e-(3)].

Candidates for accelerated advancement consequently should demonstrate
exceptional achievement both through their service to the library
and, in composite, through their professional activities, University
and public service, and research and other creative activities to
the extent that these are relevant to their position. In evaluating
such recommendations for accelerated advancement, librarians should
consider this exceptional achievement within the broader context of
the candidate's performance as a whole, and they should assess
objectively and thoroughly the candidate's overall accomplishments
compared to those of others at the candidate's rank/step in criterion
(a), Professional Competence and Quality of Service Within the
Library [APM - 210-4-e-(3)], and in criteria (b)-(d) [APM -

Appointment and Promotion Manual
Librarian Series

360-10 Criteria

b. A candidate for merit increase or promotion in this series shall
be judged on the basis of the first of the following criteria,
and, to the extent they are relevant, on one or more of
the last three:

(1)professional competence and quality of service within the
(2)professional activity outside the library;
(3)University and public service; and
(4)research and other creative activity

In the consideration of individual candidates, reasonable
flexibility shall be exercised in weighing the comparative
relevance of these criteria.

c. Promotion shall be justified by demonstrated superior professional
skills and achievement and, in addition, demonstrated professional
growth and accomplishment and/or the assumption of increased
responsibility. The assumption of administrative responsibility is
not a necessary condition for promotion.

d. An explanation of these criteria is set forth in APM - 210-4.

ppointment and Promotion Manual
Review and Appraisal Committees

210-4 Instructions to Review Committees Which Advise on the
Advancement, Merit Increase, Promotion, Career Status Actions
for Members of Librarian Series

b. ... In conducting its review and arriving at its judgement
concerning a candidate, each review committee shall be guided by the
criteria as mentioned in APM - 360-10 and described in APM -210-4-e.

e. Criteria

(2)Merit Increases and Promotions: At the time of original
appointment to a title in this series, each appointee shall
be informed that continution or advancement is justified only
by demonstrated skills and achievement which will be determined
after objective and thorough review. . . . [A]ccelerated
promotion is possible if achievement has been exceptional. An
appointee will be eligible for promotion only if there are
demonstrated superior professional skills and achievement. For
some, promotion may involve a position change; for others,
promotion may not necessarily involve position change but will
depend upon increased responsibility as well as growing
competence and contribution in the same position. The
assumption of administrative responsibilities is not a necessary
condition for promotion.

A candidate for merit increase or promotion in this series shall
be judged on the basis of professional competence and quality of
service rendered within the library and, to the extent they are
relevant, one or more of the following: professional activity
outside the library; University and public service; and research
and other creative activity. (See APM - 360- 10.)