Annelise Sklar
Teri Vogel
November 2015
1

By sharing the best practices of experienced program directors and review initiators, we intend to:
• Raise your confidence in preparing academic reviews
• Give you some ideas to make the process easier and, ultimately….
• Create more consistent files, fostering a more equitable review process
2

Website for documentation, forms, etc.: https://lisn.ucsd.edu/display/LHR1/Academic+Review
(LHR Resources  Academic Review)
• APM. Academic Personnel Manual – the policy manual for academic appointees in the UC system
• ARPM. Academic Review Procedures Manual – the procedures manual for LAUC-SD (UCSD Librarians)
• MOU. Memorandum of Understanding between UC-AFT and
UC
3

• Program Director (PD): summarizes and makes the recommendation. By definition PD is the Review Initiator
(RI).
• PD may delegate some of the tasks (see ARPM III3b.1-12)
• AUL: makes the case with Admin Team. Each AUL has an equal vote.
• Two PDs: In cases of split program assignments, the higher % one is the home program. The smaller percentage PD is a required Secondary Evaluator.
*See ARPM Section III A for more on roles & responsibilities
4

• Works with the Candidate to establish a calendar to assure prompt completion of the review file
• Gathers required documents for assembly into the
Candidate's review file (with assistance from PD)
• Writes an evaluation, assessing the value of the
Candidate's accomplishments and contributions, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and recommending measures to be taken to improve performance. [See section IV.C.4.h]
• Ensures that the applicable procedures are being followed and completed, and that the Candidate is able to review and sign all applicable portions of the review file
*See ARPM Sections III A4 and IV C4.g for details
5

• Secondary Evaluators
• Request required from:
• PDs outside of home program for split assignments. Evaluation covers only area for which s/he has responsibility;
• Request optional from:
• PD or Work Leader within a program where Candidate does not have an official assignment, but performs some job function (e.g.,
‘dotted line’ reports)
• Member of a Candidate’s home program who oversees a function of the Candidate’s job but would not have input otherwise (e.g.,
Work Leaders, coordinators)
• May be initiated by Candidate, PD or Secondary Evaluator
• Optional in terms of asking; required if you are asked to supply it
*See ARPM Section III A for more on roles & responsibilities
6

• LHR formal call in October
• Understand the candidate’s options*
• Merit Increase
• Career status
• Promotion
• Deferred Review
• Off-cycle review
• No Change
• Note the academic review calendar
• Note electronic filing process
*ARPM Section III B for definitions
7

• Set up a meeting before the referee letter requests are due (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)
• Ask the candidate to come prepared with
• highlights/biggest accomplishments of the review period
• a list of potential letter-writers (limited number)
• Ask what they think the recommended action should be
• Discuss the letter-writers on their list and what value they might bring to the process
8

• Secondary evaluators’ letters (other PDs, collection managers, reference desk supervisors)
• Get letters early from any supervisors who resign
• Discuss the up to six accomplishments to focus on in the self-review narrative
• You may discuss your inclination about the action that seems most likely, leaving room to change your mind if new information is uncovered in the writing process
• Review the process
• If the PD requests referee letters, encourage the candidate to request the redacted letters
9

• The candidate suggests letter-writers but the PD (in consultation with any delegated evaluation writer) makes the decision
• Think strategically:
• Consider the letters for this file in the context of the whole career. Don’t get letters from the same people as before; breadth and variety is good
• Think especially about B-C-D and areas where you don’t have firsthand information
• Limit letter requests !
• Carefully describe specific area to be addressed (this wording is directly transcribed into letter requests)
• Remember confidentiality: the candidate cannot know whom you ask for letters
10

• Know candidate’s comparison/peer group: review the roster and/or ask LHR
• Review your documentation. You may choose to review the candidate’s previous file; the last CAPA and UL letters can be very helpful. However, only the current review file is used for making a recommendation.
• Talk to your PD/AUL about the action that makes the most sense to you
• Don’t form a solid decision until all documentation is in, but make sure there is tentative agreement -- this is a very consultative process
• Take any procedural questions to LHR
11

• Advise them on the process
• Recommend that they use their LAUC Buddy and other colleagues
• Work together: all paperwork is considered draft until it is submitted
• Share examples (your own?)/encourage them to gather examples of others in their peer group
• Emphasize deadlines
12

• All of the Candidate’s previous review files are part of this review
• Address the current review period separately from the full career review
• Append a new narrative section that summarizes the career accomplishments and makes the case for promotion to the end of both the Self-Review (and to the section by a delegated evaluation writer, if there is one)
• Slightly longer documents are permitted (but don’t push this too much!)
13

• Encourage the candidate to complete the Position
Description and Academic Biography right after the letter request as a warm-up for the self-review
14

• One page long, reflecting the job as discussed in
Criterion I.A.
• Describes the job—not how they spend their professional time
• Should add up to 100%
• 0% is given for outside work
• Each position description included should state clearly the time frame it covers for the review period
15

• NEW FORM, posted to LiSN
• Changes to Section III (Bibliography)
• Separate peer-reviewed (part A) from non-peer reviewed (part B).
• Do not submit any actual material (articles, books).
• Do not attach a resume or CV.
• This form stays with you throughout your career.
• Any standard bibliographic citation format is acceptable.
• List memberships and continuing education here to save room in the self-review (no page limit here).
• Remember to sign and date it.
16

• An updated org chart is part of the packet
• Responsibility of Program Director
• Some candidates may require multiple org charts depending on the magnitude of reorgs in a particular department (S&E, SSHL, etc.)
17

• Remind candidates
• Do not assume that any reviewer knows them or knows the importance of their work
• Avoid jargon and acronyms. Spell out acronyms the first time used in both the bulleted list and the narrative.
• Be succinct and to the point
• Include only activity that falls within the period under review
• No “double dipping” to highlight accomplishments that overlap review periods
• The self-review is the candidate’s document. You may suggest, but they may not want to make changes.
18

• Respect the 5-page limit on the self-review
• Enumeration of accomplishments is keyed to the 4 criteria (~1-2 pages)
• Narrative discussion of up to 3 of the most significant activities within I.A and up to 3 of the most significant activities from I.B-I.D (~3-4 pages)
19

• Self-review does not follow format
• Self-review is too long
• Self-review includes activities outside of the review period
• Insufficient detail about accomplishments and impact
• Uncommon acronyms not spelled out
20

• Jan. 15 - Candidate submits self-review to PD
• Jan. 15 – Secondary evaluator(s) submit letters to
PD
• Jan. 29 – Delegated evaluation (if assigned) due to
PD
• Feb 22 – PD submits Formal Review file to LHR
21

• See Appendix VII
• Criteria A, and B, C or D
• Discuss specific evidence of superior performance
• Parameters such as:
• Effectiveness
• Quality
• Visibility
• Continued growth
• Measurable impact(s)
• Productivity
• Innovation
• Address any workload imbalances
22

• Clearly distinguish any delegated evaluation from the
Program Director’s recommendation. End each section with printed name and signature.
• Do not include names of referees in your evaluation
• What you say stays in the file forever
• Keep total length of the evaluation and recommendation to about two pages
• Be explicit that options not recommended were considered and discussed (to head off CAPA asking)
• Negative feedback: written or verbal?
• During the review process is not the time to bring up negative feedback with the candidate for the first time.
No surprises.
23

• The PD evaluation and recommendation make the case for the recommended action
• The evaluation should support the recommendation
• Connect the dots for all readers of the file
• Choose salient quotes from letters
• Use firsthand observations
• Integrate A-B-C-D into a coherent package
• Write persuasively
• Write for a wide audience
• Watch the superlatives
• Directly address unexpected negative feedback in letters and any red flags
• A summary statement at the end is helpful
24

• Be objective
• Be explicit and clear in your comments
• Do not speak in generalities only, give examples
• Provide an overall general impression and back it up with concrete examples, observations
• Concentrate on overall performance
• When mentioning negatives concentrate on recurring issues, not isolated incidents
• Provide constructive criticism, if possible
25

• How to decide about recommending additional points?
• Per Brian: “RIs need to think very, very seriously when putting a candidate up for [additional points]” and “our standard is excellent performance”
• Look at the candidate’s comparison/peer group
• Think about the precedent/expectations you’ll be setting within your program
• This affects your reputation and reflects your judgment
• If in doubt, consult with your AUL
26

• PD’s role
• specify on Appendix XI & in the written evaluation
• Refer to the guidelines in Appendix VII
• Greater than expected performance
• “ unusual achievement and exceptional promise of growth”
• “ exceptional ” and “ demonstrated superior professional skills and achievement ”
• “Extraordinary contributions”
• Quality emphasized, not quantity
• Evident in all aspects norm ally considered: Criteria A and B, C or D
• Provide supporting documentation
• Craft evaluative language to make the case
27

• Share a copy of your evaluation with the candidate in advance
• Keep a copy and make one for candidate
• Make sure you don’t give confidential letters to candidate
• Follow LHR procedures for signatures and submission
• Meet the deadline of February 22, 2016
28

• UL Decision Letter and CAPA recommendation come to PD (original for the candidate and a copy for PD)
• Make a copy for any delegated RI, if desired
• PD delivers in person (process may vary depending on program)
• LHR sends formal comments to candidate, PD/RI via email
29

• CAPA quorum
• 3 members of CAPA shall constitute a quorum when reviewing a file
• All questions for CAPA go through Doug Spence
• Ad Hocs
• All those in the librarian series with Career Status are eligible to serve on Ad Hocs
• There are many files this year and you will probably serve on an Ad Hoc
• An Ad Hoc is review group and is as important as the other reviewers
• The responsibilities of an Ad Hoc may be found in ARPM
ARPM IV.D 2-4
30

31