February 1997 Minutes

LAUC-SD Membership Meeting
February 25, 1997
Seuss Room


Attending: L. Abrams, S. Bertaux, P. Brueggeman, A. Butros, K. Cargille, L.
Claassen (chair), R. Coates, T. Dearie, J. Donovan, S. Dunlap, T. Echavarria, C.
Graham, R. Gustafson, J. Hanson, S. Jurist, E. Kanter, R. Lindemann, K. Lucas,
A. Perez, A. Prussing, B. Renford, B. Slater, G. Steel, D. Talbot, J. Thompson,
D. Tweedy, E. Valdez, B. Westbrook, R. Wang, K. Whitley


Meeting called to order at 3:05pm

1. Library Sciences Journal Cancellation - Duffy

Duffy has emailed the cancel list to everyone. The final list will be
different--send feedback to him. LAUC-SD R&PD subscriptions are not
affected by this; they will consider adding some titles after the
cancellation process.

2. Acceleration Report - Richard and Peter

Richard started with questions about the process for deciding our stance
on this issue - vote at this meeting or mailed ballot. Decision was to
proceed with discussion of revised report and get the sense of the body.

The 6 models are summarized following these minutes.

After general agreement to drop model #5, general discussion followed on
the 4 remaining possibilities outlined in the new document, including a
6th possibility of making no recommendation at all. Much of the
discussion covered similar points as the previous meeting's discussion,
with the additional consideration of pegging requirements for where the
librarian's emphasis was placed (A or B/C/D) depending on their current
rank.

Decision was to subsume model #4 into #1, to eliminate model #3 from
consideration, and to reject model #6 of doing nothing at all. This left
a decision between #1 and #2.

A straw vote between #1 and #2 yielded 14 in favor of #1 and 12 in favor
of #2, with some people not voting or having had to leave the meeting.
Everyone agreed that this was still very close and that a decision of
this sort should be put before the membership as a whole.

Motion was made, seconded and carried to conduct a mail ballot of #1
versus #2 and to accept the decision of the majority. The secretary
will send out ballots.

3. LAUC-SD Archives - Karen and Barbara

Karen and Barbara are actively working on the archives in the LAUC
office.

Meeting adjourned at 4:10pm


Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Whitley

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 1 - Summary of Models in Acceleration Discussion

Model #1 - Consideration of both Criterion A and Criteria B/C/D (to the extent
that they are relevant) for exceptional achievement: This position argues that
acceleration is possible for a person who accomplishes an exceptional body of
work within the period of time under review and that the body of work should
encompass all aspects that would be considered for a normal merit increase.

Model #2 (as revised) - Consideration of any one of Criteria A/B/C/D for
exceptional achievement: This position argues that is achievement in Criterion
A is not exceptional, then exceptional work in any one of Criteria B/C/D is
sufficient for acceleration. Contributing to the professional at an
exceptional level is in and of itself worth. This model assumes that
performance in Criterion A is acceptable.

Model #3 - Consideration of only Criterion A -- rejected.

Model #4 - Consideration of Criteria for exceptional achievement depends on the
rank of librarion -- subsumed into model #1

Model #5 - No accelerated merit increases are allowed - rejected.

Model #6 - Make no recommendation - rejected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 2 - Acceleration Document - Revised


Acceleration Report
Peter Brueggeman, Richard Lindemann
1/17/97


One benefit of peer review is that librarians set the guidelines under
which they will be considered. Currently, one could argue that UCSD
librarians are not being given equitable consideration for acceleration
since opinions about whether an acceleration is justified vary widely.
Defining the context in which peer review considers accelerations could
contribute to a common understanding of when accelerations are merited
and, consequently, to a more equitable process for all participants.

At issue is how broadly or narrowly we apply "exceptional performance"
in considering accelerations. Accelerations are merit increase
decisions made earlier than the prescribed period of service or
involving an advancement of more than one step. Consideration for merit
increase is governed by criteria specified in APM - 360-10 and APM -
210-4-e [pertinent sections are printed below]. The APM language
regarding accelerations is vague and appears within the broader context
of merit increase and promotion. The possibility of acceleration is
mentioned in only one sentence: "accelerated promotion is possible if
achievement has been exceptional" [APM - 210-4-e-(2)]. Within the
spirit of the APM, LAUC-SD may wish to interpret that sentence to mean
"accelerated merit increase or promotion is possible if achievement has
been exceptional." This interpretation would clarify imprecise wording
that could be narrowly applied to allow only accelerated promotions and
to disallow accelerated merit increases.

To paraphrase the APM, a candidate for merit increase or promotion is
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 library;
(2)professional activity outside the library; (3)University and public
service; and (4)research and other creative activity. Reasonable
flexibility is exercised in weighing the comparative relevance of these
criteria.

Given the above considerations for judging a merit increase or
promotion, how then should a candidate be judged for an acceleration
"...if achievement has been exceptional"? Comments expressed at the
December 17th meeting and received afterward embody these models for
peer review judgement of an acceleration:

1) Consideration of both Criteria A and Criteria B/C/D (to the extent
they are relevant) for exceptional achievement:
This position argues that acceleration is possible for a person who
accomplishes an exceptional body of work within the period of time under
reviewand that the body of work should encompass all aspects that would
be considered for a normal merit increase.

2)Consideration of any one of Criteria A/B/C/D for exceptional
achievement:
This position argues that if achievement in Criteria A is not
exceptional, then exceptional work in any one of Criteria B/C/D is
sufficient for acceleration. Contributing to the profession at an
exceptional level is in and of itself worthy. This model assumes that
performance in Criteria A is not substandard.

3) Consideration of only Criteria A for exceptional achievement: This
position argues that exceptional service to the UCSD Libraries within
Criteria A is in and of itself deserving of consideration for
acceleration. This model assumes that performance in Criteria B/C/D is
not substandard.

4) Consideration of Criteria for exceptional achievement depends on the
rank of librarian: This position considers the context for exceptional
achievement as dependent on the rank of librarian and involves
graduating expectations, in which a librarian advances through the
Assistant Librarian steps almost exclusively on the basis of Criteria A,
through the Associate Librarian steps on the basis of both Criteria A
and Criteria B/C/D (with Criteria A being given greater weight at the
lower steps and Criteria B/C/D given increasing weight in the higher
steps), and through the Full Librarian steps on the basis of both
Criteria A and Criteria B/C/D. In this model, acceleration would
require exceptional achievement in Criteria B/C/D in the higher steps of
Associate Librarian and in all steps of Full Librarian. As in normal
merit increases, this model is vague as to which step of Associate
Librarian it is required for achievement to be exceptional in Criteria
B/C/D.

5) No accelerated merit increases are allowed. This position considers
normal merit increase sufficient to reward achievement and argues that
accelerated merit increases are not described in the APM (which mentions
only accelerated promotion).

LAUC-SD should decide a model to choose for peer review of accelerations
in order to ensure equitable consideration for acceleration among
librarians. Since consensus is unlikely and since this pertains to the
critical peer review process, it may well be that a majority view is
adopted.

We hope that further discussion of these models at the upcoming
membership meeting will lead to a motion to select the most desirable
one or to ballot the membership, which would lead to drafting a position
paper that reflects the majority view of the membership.

=================================================================
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 library;
(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 administrative
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.


Appointment and Promotion Manual
Review and Appraisal Committees

210-4 Instructions to Review Committees Which Advise on the
Appointment, 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.)