a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop December 2014 Goals of this workshop By sharing the best practices of experienced program directors and review initiators, we intend.
Download ReportTranscript a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop December 2014 Goals of this workshop By sharing the best practices of experienced program directors and review initiators, we intend.
a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop December 2014 1 Goals of this workshop 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 Documents you should know about Website for documentation, forms, etc.: https://libraries.ucsd.edu/lisn/programs/library-humanresources/academic-review/index.html#academicreview aka: http://tinyurl.com/ARshortcut • 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 Roles* 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 PD/RI activities that can be delegated to a Work Leader* 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 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 Roles* 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 Preparation 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 Meet with candidate Set up a meeting before the referee letter requests are due (Wednesday, December 1, 2014) 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 Meet with candidate 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 Referee Letters 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 Study and discuss 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 For first-time candidates 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 Promotion files 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 Self-review warm-up 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 Position Description 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 Academic Biography CAPA has prepared instructions for librarians http://libraries.ucsd.edu/about/pro/lauc-sd/2_academic_review/index.html Do not attach a resume or CV This form stays with you throughout your career Do not submit any actual material (articles, books) Any standard bibliographic citation format is acceptable List memberships and continuing education here to save room in the self-review Remember to sign and date it 16 Org Chart 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 Self-reviews 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 Self-reviews 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 items within I.A and up to 3 of the most significant items from I.B-I.D (~3-4 pages) 19 Common problems with files 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 Dates to keep in mind Jan. 16 - Candidate submits self-review to PD Jan. 16 – Secondary evaluator(s) submit letters to PD Jan. 31 – Delegated evaluation (if assigned) due to PD Feb 23 – PD submits Formal Review file to LHR 21 Evaluation Guidelines 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 Evaluation and Recommendation 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 Making the case 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 Writing Exercise 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 Recommending the right action How to decide about recommending additional points? Per Brian: “RIs need to think very, very seriously when putting a candidate up for acceleration” 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 Recommending additional salary points 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 normally considered: Criteria A and B, C or D Provide supporting documentation Craft evaluative language to make the case 27 Review Signing 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 23, 2015 28 Afterward 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 Questions… and please fill out the evaluation 30 CAPA reminders 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 31