Site Contents
UCOP - LAUC - Committees - Committee on Professional Governance
Report to the 2005 LAUC Spring Assembly
Report on Standing Charge #3:
Accuracy of Information on the Peer-Review Process
February 3, 2005 – Updated April 13, 2005
Executive Summary
The LAUC Committee on Professional Governance (CPG) has several standing charges, the third of which is to “maintain access to campus peer-review documents on the Web or in electronic format and review those peer-review materials on the Web site biennially in order to ensure adequacy and currency of materials” (LAUC Bylaws, Article VIII, Section 1.j.2). This charge was due for its biennial update during the 2004/05 year. To fulfill this charge, the chair asked each campus representative on CPG to “certify” that his or her own campus’s materials, as linked from the LAUC home page, were adequate and current. Members were advised to seek assistance or review from their local peer review committees. Summaries of these responses are listed in Part I. Secondly, in order to provide a more independent examination of each campus’s documentation, the chair asked each member of CPG to read the documentation from another campus for clarity and any apparent inconsistencies. These responses are listed in Part II. Each member will report the comments of this “independent” examination back to their peer review committees for possible action.
The report was submitted to LAUC President Huwe on February 3, 2005. It was briefly re-examined and updated on April 12 th for inclusion in our Report for the Spring Assembly.
—Rob Melton (LAUC-SD), Chair
Part I: Campus Self-Examinations
UC Berkeley
Member: Michaelyn Burnette
Summary: UCB has two Web sites of peer-review information, one mounted by Library Human Resources Department for The Library (headed by the University Librarian) and the other managed by Academic Personnel for affiliated librarians (those at libraries which report to various deans, research centers, etc.). Both are up-to-date except for rosters of last year’s peer-review committees. CAPA, the LAUC-B peer review body for both sets of librarians, has a FAQ; it is also up-to-date.
UC Davis
Member : Marcia Meister
Summary: LAUC-D procedures were revised and re-titled this year and the web page is accurate. The local peer review committee was also renamed (to CAPA). The LAUC Web link needs to be changed. (Requested to Ilan Eyman on Dec. 10, 2004 ; accomplished.)
UC Irvine
Member : Collette Ford
Summary : Per consultation with the chair of the LAUC-I Library Review Committee, UC Irvine’s peer review documentation is up-to-date and fully details our local peer review process. However, Ford requested that the link from the LAUC homepage be changed to a UCI site with more detailed information. (Requested to Ilan Eyman on Jan. 25, 2005 ; not yet accomplished as of April 12, 2005 ).
UC Los Angeles
Member : Louise Ratliff
Summary: Information is valid, except for the calendar portion. However, UCLA is in the process of examining its peer review process and structure by means of a task force appointed by the University Librarian. Decisions are pending, and changes will need to be codified.
Per consultation with LAUC-LA Chair and Webmaster, Ratliff requested that the link from the LAUC web page be changed to a site with much more complete information. This has been accomplished as of December 9, 2004 .
UC Riverside
Member: John Bloomberg-Rissman
Summary: Two LAUC-R documents have just been revised by CACLS (Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on the Librarian Series): the recommended calendar for the 2005 review cycle and the tips for writing review documentation. The other documents are accurate at this point. However, the University Librarian has begun to form a committee to examine a possible revision of all documents. As of late January 2005, it is unclear clear when this committee’s report will be made.
UC San Diego
Member : Rob Melton
Summary: During the process of conducting this review, CAPA (Committee on Appointment, Promotion, and Advancement) discovered an error in the ARPM. After consultation with the head of Library Human Resources, this error has been corrected. All documentation is now accurate and up-to-date.
UC San Francisco
Member: Min-Lin Fang
Summary: LAUC-SF is in the process of reviewing its Peer Review Web pages. We plan to have it completed in spring 2005. [As of April 12, 2005 , the Web page still has the copyright date of 1999--Chair]
UC Santa Barbara
Member : Sherry DeDecker
Summary: The posted policies for LAUC-SB reflect what we actually have. However, they are not up-to-date because a task force assigned to bring the documentation into compliance with the revised MOU has not yet completed its report. This should be done this [academic] year.
UC Santa Cruz
Member: Kerry Scott
Summary: The LAUC-SC information is current.
Part II: External Examinations
UC Berkeley
Reviewed by: Kerry Scott, UCSC
Summary: “The UCB page is very clear … it’s easy to know where to look for specific information.”
UC Davis
Reviewed by: Michaelyn Burnette, UCB
Summary: “UCD has what appears to me an exceptionally clear and useful site for peer review. It’s easy to find and has all the documents mounted on it. … All necessary instructions, forms, and an annotated MOU and APM are there. … As far as I can tell, it’s up-to-date, although I don’t see a date on the site nor do I see any timetables for the review process.”
UC Irvine
Reviewed by: Marcia Meister, UCD
Summary: “UCI’s documentation is thorough, well documented, and dated [i.e., dates are given for each document’s latest revision]. It’s long and detailed but the strategy of keeping it in PDF may make it easier to keep current.” Also notes that it has ample indexing; separate documents for represented and non-represented librarians; annotations with citations to relevant MOU and/or APM sections; and a section on “Criteria for Advancement to Librarian Step VI” that “could serve as a model document for other UC libraries.”
UC Los Angeles
Reviewed by: Collette Ford, UCI
Summary: “The documentation … seemed to be straight-forward and clearly delineates their local peer review process.” Mentioned that the date on the site was “effective July 2003.” As a result of UCLA’s own self-examination, the site now says “Updated December 9, 2004 .”
UC Riverside
Reviewed by: Louise Ratliff, UCLA
Summary: UC-R’s information seems current and complete (with a latest revision date of 2002), with the exception of the “CACLS Recommended Calendar for the 2004 Review Cycle,” which will no doubt be updated shortly. [It was—Chair].
UC San Diego
Reviewed by: John Bloomberg-Rissman, UCR
Summary: UCSD’s documents are readable, clear, and thorough. One potential area that might need attention was found: reference to “Librarian V” as if the scale hadn’t been extended. Melton has referred this to CAPA at UCSD.
UC San Francisco
Reviewed by: Rob Melton, UCSD
Summary: Organization and readability are fine, but the documentation seems not to have been revised since 1999. As a result, there are some anomalies (e.g., implication that Librarian V is the highest rank) and possible misinformation about people, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, URL’s, etc. that may have changed since the latest revision.
UC Santa Barbara
Reviewed by: Min-Lin Fang, UCSF
Summary: Some information in the “Helpful Tips on The Review Process” needs to be updated. For example, some links refer to old documents, which include references to Librarian V as the highest rank. Also, the “Procedures for Appointment and Review, Librarian Series, UCSB” hasn’t been updated since September 1999.
UC Santa Cruz
Reviewed by: Sherry DeDecker, UCSB
Summary: The information seems complete, although some information for represented librarians seems to be in draft form (dated 2/28/02 ). K. Scott has pointed this out to the LAUC-SC webmaster, and references to “draft” are being removed, because the information is current and accurate.
Send comments regarding this site to Frank Lester, LAUC Web Manager. Last updated: