LAUC 1999 SPRING ASSEMBLY PROGRAM

"Librarian Series Top Step: Holy Grail or Holy Cow!"

GROUP EXERCISE RESULTS

For the program portion of the Assembly, delegates, Executive Board members and visitors were divided into small groups and asked to respond to three questions about advancing to the top step of the Librarian Series. The result of those small group gatherings is concatenated below.

Question 1: How attainable should the top step of the series be? Is the current level of approximately 10% university wide of librarians passing the barrier step satisfactory? What are our expectations for the number of librarians to attain the top step: 20%, 30%, 60%? Why? How do expectations match current distribution?

• Do we need to retain a barrier step. Built into UCOP thinking but may not apply to librarians.
• Hard to recruit into lower end.
• Why not 100% of librarians attaining top step?
• How many Librarians Step 4 to Step 5?
• Do any campuses apply percentages to number attaining top step?
• Do faculty restrict to a certain percentage?
• Is the philosophy that every librarian could attain Step 5?
• If a person gets career status, they should have potential to reach Step 5.
• UCSF if librarian reaches career status, then the person has potential to reach Step 5.
• If every librarian has potential, then percentages do/should/can not apply.
• More than 10% now at Librarian Step 5?
• No common % - depts on campus vary (e.g., lots of off-scale vs. zero off-scale).
• Not quota, rather how many would one expect to rise to Librarian Step 5?
• Fear that numbers will control process not quality of individuals.
• Looking at numbers can help ensure fairness-especially at campuses few Librarians Step 5.
• No minimum or maximum number at top step.
• If more steps, barrier step moves up as well.
• Faculty barrier step not a "concrete wall," rather a fence to climb.
• Would we (ULs and librarians) need to redefine review criteria accelerated promotion/advancement barrier?
• Never systematic interpretation of criteria.
• Position Paper No. 1: Librarian Step 5 attainable by all.
• Redacted letters have less value; its not hard to identify writer.
• Write good letters for each other othewise won't get good letters back.
• Sink your own ship by writing honest letters.
• Reduce having too many internal letters to produce less back-scratching.
• Campus philosophy differs from internal letters.
• Depends on whether the UL or the Vice-Chancellor is final decision-maker on review files.
• Shouldn't all become Librarian Step 5?
• Equal opportunity: legally yes; practically no.
• Heavy primary job workload precludes involvment in activities that lead to attaining Step 5.

Question 2: Selected anecdotal phrases and concepts that we use to apply the Librarian Step 5 criteria: "walk on water," possess a Librarian 5 aura, have one's name identified as national library leaders such as the President of ALA, publish a book, use as a reward. What are others you have heard or use yourself?

• For faculty research and publishing is part of their primary function. How true is that for librarians?
• At UCLA: need a capstone such as build a new library as a major accomplishment or a variety of activities in category B, including a book contract.
• At UCB, person published a book and did not get advanced to Step 5.
• AT UCB, 50% of Librarians Step 4 have tried and not been advanced to Step 5.
• AT UCB for those who didn't get Step 5 there was not consistent excellence.
• At UCSB, published book or nationally known gets one to Step 5.
• At UCSB, 50% of librarians are unit heads)
• At UCSF strong emphasis on research and creativity. Active in national state, UC organization. Excellence in all 4 criteria.
• At UCI variety of activities; not necessarily a capstone achievement.
• At UCI in the past, Step 5 may have been used as a reward for long service.
• At UCI there is tension between public service responsibilities and time for research.
• Scholarly "aura."
• Recognised on a national level outside of a professional organization.
• Many terms come from UCLA.
• "Halo"
• President of a national/state organization.
• Series of significant accomplishments OR one major accomplishment.
• Accomplishments may/may not have something to do with your primary job responsibilities.
• Non-primary areas put someone over the top, yet primary areas occupy most of one's time.
• Demographics: many qualified, burdened with heavy primary job duties, are fighting an unspoken quota.
• Must be understanding of criteria and minimum guidelines across campus.
• Why are we reviewing ourselves this way?
• Was created at a time when there were sabbaticals, release time.
• If one has done research, check citation indexes, book chapters, editors, content to see if research matures over time.
• Impact significance, lasting value of research.
• If other people outside professional or UC mention one's work.
• How often one's web pages are hit.
• Determine if one actually does the work or just oversees and takes credit for subordinate's work.
• Make a distinction between newsletter articles and referried journal articles.
• Don't have to jump higher if you are better.
• Has the barrier "step" moved up?
• UL may have different interpretation than the LAUC peer review committee--who ultimately decides? If UL, then its not really peer review.
• In interest of those who to keep salaries down.
• Criteria for merits have moved up (e.g., no accelerated promotions for Librarian rank.)
• Skews process when you eliminate rewards but retain "accel" (e.g., no move up in step).
• Sense that there is certain quality as well as quantity for promotion.
• Supposed to be incentive program, but without rewards where is the motivation to "do?"
• Faculty criteria do not mention "distinguished career."
• Faculty have ways to document qualty of teaching--can librarians generate that information to benefit them?
• Librarians do not have parity with faculty salaries--or advancement--so why jump through faculty-like hoops in a peer review model? What is the point of adhering to a faculty-like model?
• UCLA number of Librarians 5 much lower than other divisions.
• Seems that "push" over barrier varies from division to division (e.g., national reputation or write a book for some but not for others to "make" Step 5).
• Peer review committees have a body of laws (e.g., regulations) and no history of "case law" (e.g., rely on corporate memory not historical dates).
• Perception that AULs & ULs can influence decision process, even before packets are presented (unknown impact of behind the scenes negotiating).
• Feel peer review is not working.
• Objectivity is lost when process stays within library entirely.
• Faculty review process is different--librarians need more evaluation from colleagues.

Question 3: How do we need to change the culture we have created surrounding passing the barrier step to attain the top step of the series What can we do to change or influence the culture surrounding advancement to the top step of the series? Divisions, university wide?

Current culture:

• . . . Librarians have high standards, that's why we're here.
• . . . Librarians are being too self-critical. (X2)
• . . . Librarians are too extreme(standards grown very high). Now librarians need to return to a middle ground.
• . . . Currently Librarians are interpreting [criteria] much too hard. Therefore,
• . . . the barrier step should not be in middle of the series--move it up as well when steps are added to series.
• . . . Criteria 2-4 move librarians up. Focus on criteria 1 when evaluating contributions is not strong enough.
• . . . Librarians and ULs are not good at moving folks beyond the "barrier."
• . . . If one is a high achiever, there is the expectation that one has to top oneself each review.
• . . . Peer review committees lack authority . . . Need support from review initiator and UL.
• . . . Not really "peer" review anymore. AUL/UL pretty much decide on outcome.
• . . . May be a model that doesn't work for librarians anymore.
• . . . Peer review process allowed more movement.
• . . . ULs who believed in LAUC concept ar all gone, except 1.
• . . . Why demanding so much if Step 5 is unattainable?
• . . . Position Paper 1 valid but wrongly interpreted.
• . . . Criteria fuzzy and unevenly applied.
• . . . Career planning is problematic.

Culture we need to foster:

• Get colleagues to understand what is a reasonable expectation now vs. 10, 15, 20 years ago when there were many more librarians to share the workload (i.e., before VERIPS, early retirements followed by not filling open positions to garner salary savings to offset budget cuts).
• Get over the notion that it is "opening the floodgates" if more are advanced to Step 5. Why need to watchdog advancement so closely?
• If steps are added to the top, and interpretation of the criteria for the barrier step doesn't change, the barrier step must move. Otherwise there will be gridlock in the middle of the series as incumbents reach and do not pass the barrier step.
• Need positive perspective on review process.
• Promote mentoring program between Librarians at Step 5 and those who aspire to Step 5 to share knowledge, skills, strategies.
• Division level: ongoing discussion about evaluation and perception of how to attain Step 5.
• Conduct workshops on peer review process.
• Provide guidance before review process occurs.
• Separate salary from title.
• Develop incentives to encourage continued high level performance.
• Allow merit increases within each step.
• Promote better understanding of librarian peer review process at the campus level (i.e., how it differs from faculty peer review process).
• Address and acknowledge the tremendous variation in practices between campuses.
• Encourage/acknowledge ongoing dialog between review initiator/reviewee.
• Eliminating barrier step does not make advancement meaningless.
• Need consciousness raising.
• Be more explicit in what activities are "worth" in terms of review.
• Spell out expectation of criteria.
• More explicit criteria.
• Focus on evaluation that career creates a bigger barrier. Should only need to happen at major movements.