• Label Part I.
• Use title of position description or position assignment, not both.
• Preference for position assignment.
• Are percentages of time assigned required? (Are done by faculty).

• Question of use of 5 categories. Best method statistically?
• Committee needs to question methodology.
• Model for University Librarian Part B should be the same as Associate University Librarian Part B.
• Service responsibilities must be done at the University Librarian level while still at Associate University Librarian rank.
• Accumulation of multi-year performance is what governs promotion. Not individual year.
• Would like to see same wording at all three levels.
• Not realistic that librarian would perform in all areas on a yearly basis.
• No interpretation of service allowed in forms.
• Definition of service needed.
• Mistake to make performance in all areas an annual requirement.
• Need to develop (or explain) flexibility in the wording for campus/university committee service. Perhaps expand it to include the whole service statement in the promotion document.
• Review question 14.
• Have two forms, one for goals and objectives, one for annual report.
• Question legality of signature sheet.
• Should identify what each signature is for on the sheet.

• Should be based on annual performance appraisal form.
• No separate form
• Candidate may apply or be nominated
• Peer review component
  • All librarians?
  • Department only.
  • Division only.
• Options
  • Peer review of B and C. Also peer review of what employee did for department.
  • Individual responsible for own process. Seek letters of recommendation.
  • Merit committee does all review.
• Who can look at evaluations?
• Merit should be streamlined.
• Is candidacy automatic, or should employee be forced to apply or be nominated?
• Peer review as body of last resort able to over-ride supervisor?
• Should have peer review of all sections: A, B and C.
• Have supervisor statement in support of merit.
• Supervisor may nominate. Too much power for supervisor? Have option for self nomination.
• Merit is selective.
• Have an appeal mechanism for merit.
• Define peer group.
• Develop consistency on how merit is done.
• Library wide peer review can address inconsistencies of supervisory review.

1. Question regarding rating for performance appraisal form: Is 5 the best number of choices. Maybe we should investigate literature/consult experts on survey design.

Suggestions:

• Investigate or research development of appraisal rating (is 5 best number).
• Reconsider Pt 1 to make it "assignment form" (make language consistent).
• Look at percentages assigned to assignment form. (faculty are required to do this).
• Multi-year vs. annual evaluation. Its not fair to evaluate annually on criteria for promotion because librarian has multiple years to meet those criteria.
• Review assoc. & university levels - language should reflect candidate prepaing for the NEXT rank - not the rank they are in.
• Use same 3 criteria elements in appraisal forms.
• Define professional contribution-(Pt.B of Appraisal Form).
• #2 (Pt. B) might be reworded to allow more flexibility in campus involvement. (promotion language more flexible)
• Look at Phrasing of #14 (willingness) (flexibility, adaptability).
• Timing of Goals and objectives for coming year questioned in relation to evaluation for current year.
• 1 form for goals and objectives and 1 form for annual report form. 2 templates for 1 form in each phase.
  A. Goals and Objectives
  B. Annual Report
  
• Date "Signature Sheet" Rethink logistics of Signature Sheet.

Suggestions:

• Base merit on Performance Appraisal Form for consistency.
• Peer review component in merit process.
• Who is on "peer group".

  Toni Downs
  Merit language determined by legislature. Need fair equitable process from committee and definition of merit may be based on: job, service and research.

• Merit should be consistent with supervisors appraisal. Options discussed by committee include:
  1. Use peer review committee to evaluate candidates in Pts. B + C of Eval. Doc.
  2. Use peer review committee to evaluate candidates in Pts. A, B and C
  3. Individual responsible for own merit review process- create application with letters, etc.

  Elaine
  Librarians can determine what to be used as documentation for merit process and who will review documentation distribution is up to administration.
  4. Merit Committee recommends/evaluates merit. (looking at entire appraisal form)(looking at entire appraisal form to do: check on legality of looking at other librarians appraisal form (if not promotion committee).
  
  Toni Downs
  Process -what ever is decided- must go to Provost and President for approval.
  More Suggestions:
  Streamline process
  Make merit automatic unless person declines.
  Peer Review Committee as mediating body.
  Appraisal form (pt. III) - can it be used as part of merit process?
  
  5. Add statement from supervisor regarding merit to Appraisal form. May be used in self nominating process as well. Person asks supervisor for statement of support. Concern - gives supervisor too much of a role in merit. Include something that gives opportunity for input from source(s) other than supervisor.
  Does supervisor have to provide rating to administration.
  Toni Downs
  Possible for peer review to contribute with final approval from Provost.

• Compile discussion here to be discussed with peers. Encourage discussion- need more librarians input.
• Good idea for peer review in some form for merit. Peer committee to score individuals.

  Elaine
  Looking for feed back - What documentation - Who will review documentation. Review performance appraisal Form to see if parts could be used for peer evaluation. How are supervisors going to be evaluated for merit?

  Toni Downs
  Not part of charge to current committee. How do you define peer group? Consistency in how merit is done is germane to process - re: documentation, who is looking at it, etc. Confirms need to have peer involvement. A peer review committee (library wide) can look at what is happening in evaluations.

1. Approval of Minutes

• Minutes from February 5 approved with corrections.
• Minutes from February 26 approved with corrections.

• Form reviewed for wording New title for Part I will be "Librarian Annual Assignment".
  Actions
  1. Elaine will change the name on all Part I documents to "Librarian Annual Assignment".
  2. Elaine will post instructions to Part I on the Web.

• Please see Minutes from Open Forum. UP Minutes || NC Minutes
• Discussion of ways to strengthen attendance and promote the viewing of documents.
  Actions
  1. Elaine will label "Librarian Annual Assignment" as "Part I".
  2. Valerie will investigate the validity of the 5 point scale for evaluations. A suggestion was made to contact David Hall in Institutional Research for assistance.
  3. Elaine and Nancy will review the promotion document for language for Part III, especially at the Associate University Librarian and University Librarian levels.
  4. The schedule for the due dates of the various parts is to be changed on all documents as followed :
     • Part I -- June 15
     • Part II (Librarian Annual Report) -- August 1
     • Part II (Goals and Objectives) -- August 15
     • Part III -- August 1
  5. Valerie and Mirtha will alter instruction booklet to include a statement that a new employee should complete Part I and Part II within 3 months of their employment.
  6. Toni will contact Judy Blucker concerning the necessity of percentages for faculty and the legality of the signature sheets.
  7. Valerie will amend Instructions for Part II so that the Goals and Objectives will remain part of the permanent Personnel file. These Goals will only be removed from the file if review is necessary.
  8. Part II signature sheet will be labeled to clarify which signature is for which section. (i.e. Goals and Objectives; Librarian Annual Report)
  9. Elaine will change existing documents as stated above. Elaine will place clean documents on the North Campus Local Area Network for their use; Elaine will forward copies of the documents to place on University Park Local Area Network.

• Options for merit evaluation:
  1. Committee do entire merit evaluation.
  2. Merit evaluation done by supervisor.
  3. Both committee and supervisor have input for merit.
• Discussion of whether individual librarians can choose how they wish to be scored for merit.
• Discussion of methods of committee evaluating librarians - alteration of Part III, review and scoring of submitted documents, consideration of supervisor's evaluation, committee requesting documentation.
• Consideration of Proposal A.
  Actions
  1. Elaine and Mirtha will modify Part III as a possible committee evaluation form.