1
LAUC-D Committee on Appointments, Promotions & Advancement (CAPA)
Annual Report
2010-2011
1. Members
Cory Craig, Chair
Adam Siegel, Vice-chair, Chair-elect
Roberto Delgadillo
Lisa Spagnolo
Ruth Gustafson
2. Proposed Actions
Librarians reviewed: 18
One-Step Merit:
Career Status:
Acceleration:
Promotion:
13
0
1**
3
Step VI:
No Action Plateau:
1**
1
Contested Action*: 2
Appointment (New) 1
Appointment (Temporary) 0
CAPA Recommendation
Differing from Review Initiator’s 1
*Defined in PEARLS Documentation, “Review Procedures for Appointees in the Librarian Series” page 4:
“a contested case is one where the librarian under review or any of the reviewing individuals or the LAUC-
D CAPA is in disagreement with the review initiator's recommended action.”
URL: http://laucd.lib.ucdavis.edu/peerreview/prdc09/ReviewProceduresR(10%201).doc
**Candidate ’s requested action differed from proposed action.
3. Activities
The committee reviewed 18 packets (17 reviews and 1 new appointment). Of these: 14 were from the General Library; 3 were from the UC Davis Mabie Law Library; and 1 was from the
Institute of Government Affairs. All CAPA letters were submitted via the General Library
Administration Office.
CAPA met approximately 26 times between 1/18/2011 and 6/21/2011. CAPA members met with Helen Henry, AUL for Administrative Services, on 9/16/2010 (meeting for current and incoming CAPA members); and 1/14/2011 (to discuss confidentiality of review process before packet review began). Helen Henry also held a Library Orientation Meeting on 10/4/10 for all librarians up for review, which all available CAPA members attended. In addition, CAPA developed a “Best Practices” wiki page, and held a presentation on 10/13/2010 to discuss
Recommended Best Practices for librarians up for review. The “Best Practices” wiki page is here: http://staff/wiki/index.php/CAPA_Best_Practices .

2
4. Issues for Discussion
The committee discussed the following issues:

PEARLS documents no longer available at: http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/admin/pearls/ .
Documentation for the Librarian Review process was formerly posted on the admin section of the library web page ( http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/admin/pearls/ ). That page currently redirects to the Peer Review Documents section of the LAUC-D website
( http://laucd.lib.ucdavis.edu/peerreview/#peer ) where the PEARLS documents are available.

Law librarian reviews include 6 months that have not yet occurred.
Reviews for law librarians use the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30), and include 6 months that have not yet occurred when the review packets are submitted and evaluated. To illustrate, law librarian review packets for this year were due to Library
Administration by December 2010. For a law librarian on a 2 year review cycle, the review period covered would have been July 2009-June 2011. The committee felt some discomfort in this approach.

Updated procedures needed when available from the Law Library.
At this time Library Administration does not have updated procedures for Law Library reviews. A librarian review packet from 2009 indicated that new documentation was being worked on. The Law Library should provide new guidelines to the Library
Administration as soon as they have been completed and approved.

Vice-Provost request for input on a process to evaluate research & subject specialty work:
In August 2010, Vice-Provost Horwitz requested that LAUC-D provide input to develop a process for evaluating research and other subject specialty work done by librarians when it does not fall within strict definitions of librarianship. The task was given to the
LAUCD Professional Issues Committee (PIC), which developed a report “PIC Report
2011” (see: http://laucd.lib.ucdavis.edu/ProfessionalIssues/2011_PICReport.doc
).
To assist in this area, CAPA developed the “Recommended Best Practices” wiki page and presentation mentioned previously in this report. Future CAPA committees may wish to continue developing this wiki page and presentation. See: http://staff/wiki/index.php/CAPA_Best_Practices .
In the future, CAPA may want to consider holding a presentation in late summer or very early fall, and evaluating whether or not holding the presentation earlier provides any advantages to librarians up for review.
Report Completed: 8/2/2011