ARTICLE 4
PROCESS FOR MERIT INCREASE, PROMOTION, AND CAREER STATUS
RESPONSIBILITY
Local campus procedures shall provide for the selection of members of a review
committee to advise the designated University official on the merit increases,
promotions, and career status actions for members of the Librarian Series in this
bargaining unit. Appointees holding titles in the series shall compose the
majority of this committee.
When the designated University official determines the need for an ad hoc review
committee, local campus procedures shall provide for the nomination of
members of ad hoc review committees to advise in the academic review of
members of this series.
DEFINITIONS
A promotion is an advancement to a higher rank within this series.
A merit increase is an advancement in salary within rank in this series.
Career status is achieved upon successful completion of a suitable trial period in
potential career status.
PROCEDURES
The following provisions shall apply:
The performance of each appointee shall be reviewed periodically and the review
shall include participation by a review committee.
On the current salary scale, the normal intervals for academic reviews of
incumbents in the librarian series are every year in the Assistant Librarian
rank; every year in the first two steps of the Associate Librarian rank;
every two years beginning with Step III of the Associate Librarian rank
through Step II of the Librarian rank (following the initial two year review
at Associate Librarian Step VII, the Associate Librarian Step VII shall be
subject to subsequent reviews every three years); every three years
beginning with Step III of the Librarian rank through Step V of the
Librarian rank. Service at Associate Librarian Step VII and Librarian Step
IV may be of indefinite duration. However, reviews must be conducted at
least every three years at these steps unless an individual or review
initiator requests an earlier review.
On the new salary scale, the normal intervals for academic review of
incumbents in the librarian series are every two years in the Assistant
Librarian rank, every two years in the first six steps of the Associate
Librarian rank, and every three years beginning with Step VII of the
Associate Librarian rank through Step VII of the Librarian rank. Service at
Associate Librarian Step VII and Librarian Steps V, VI, and VII may be of
indefinite duration. However, reviews must be conducted at least every
three years at these steps unless an individual or review initiator requests
an earlier review.
A deferred review is the omission of an academic review during a year when a
review would normally take place. It is a neutral action which can only be
initiated with the written agreement of the reviewee.
A review may be deferred if prolonged absence or other unusual
circumstances have resulted in insufficient evidence to evaluate
performance. Reasons for review deferral must be in writing and all
proposed deferrals must be submitted for written recommendations to the
designated University official. The University's decisions concerning
review deferrals shall not be subject to grievance and arbitration.
When a deferral takes place, the review is deferred for one year whether
a person's review cycle is 2 or 3 years. Hence deferral for an additional,
consecutive year should be regarded as a new request and thus subject
to the same procedure. After the completion of a review which has been
deferred, the review cycle will resume anew at the 2 or 3 year interval.
The call for merit increases, promotions and career status actions and the
calendar of due dates for the review process shall be issued and distributed each
year to every member of the librarian series no later than thirty (30) days prior to
the first required action following issuance of the Call. The librarian shall be
notified of the decision normally within nine (9) months of the first required action.
This deadline may be extended upon the mutual agreement of the parties.
All members of the librarian bargaining unit will be informed in writing, on a yearly
basis, of their eligibility for review.
A member of the librarian bargaining unit who is not normally eligible for a review
during a particular review cycle may request an accelerated review during that
cycle. The decision regarding the librarian's request shall be made in accordance
with campus guidelines.
The University shall notify the candidate of the impending review and shall inform
the candidate about the review process, including the criteria to be used.
The candidate shall be given the opportunity to ask questions and to supply
information and evidence to be evaluated in the review.
The University may solicit letters evaluating the candidate from qualified persons,
including a reasonable number of persons whose names have been provided by
the candidate. The decision whether or from whom to solicit letters shall not be
subject to grievance and arbitration.
The candidate may provide in writing to the review initiator or other
appropriate person, names of persons who in the view of the candidate,
for reasons provided by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate in a
letter or on a committee, the candidate's qualifications or performance.
Any such statement provided by the candidate shall be included in the
academic review file. The University decision regarding the requested
disqualification shall not be subject to grievance and arbitration.
In soliciting letters of evaluation or following the receipt of an unsolicited
letter, the University shall include, attach or send a statement regarding
confidentiality of such letters.
All such letters used in the review, even if unsolicited, shall be included in
the file.
An academic review file shall be prepared for each candidate who is being
considered for a merit increase, promotion, or career status action. The review
initiator is responsible for preparing the candidate's review file, which consists of
the review initiator's letter of recommendation together with pertinent additional
letters, if any, including those letters solicited from individuals as provided for in
8. above, and required documents.
The review initiator's letter of recommendation, without disclosing the identities of
sources of confidential documents, shall discuss the proposed personnel action
in light of the criteria and substantiated by supporting evidence contained in the
file. The letter of recommendation shall provide a comprehensive assessment of
the candidate's qualifications, together with detailed evidence to support the
evaluation, including an up-to-date biography and bibliography. The letter may
also present a report of consultation with appropriate members of the
professional library staff and others in a position to evaluate performance and
may include any dissenting opinions.
Before forwarding the academic review file to the next level of review, the review
initiator shall provide the candidate an opportunity to inspect all documents to be
included in the review file other than confidential academic review records as
defined in Article 5, Personnel Files. A copy of the review initiator's letter of
recommendation shall be provided to the candidate.
The University shall provide to the candidate, upon written request, a redacted
copy of the confidential documents included in the record.
The candidate may submit for inclusion in the record a written statement in
response to or commenting upon material in the file.
Upon completion of the procedures described above, a statement shall be signed
by the candidate certifying that the prescribed procedures have been followed. A
documentation checklist listing the contents of the review file shall also be signed
by the candidate. The certification statement and the documentation checklist
shall be included in the review file.
Decisions and recommendations of the review committee(s) shall be based
solely upon material within the review packet.
If, during subsequent review of a recommendation, the review file is found to be
incomplete or inadequate by the reviewer or review committee, additional
information shall be solicited through the designated University official who will
inform the candidate that such new material is being added to the review file.
The candidate shall have access to all non-confidential material added to the file
and upon request, a redacted copy of the confidential documents shall be
provided to the candidate. The candidate shall also be provided the opportunity
to submit a written statement in response to the additions to the review file. The
review shall then be based upon the personnel review file as augmented.
No documentation other than the recommendation(s) of the review committee(s)
may be added to the review file without annotation of the certification statement
and the documentation checklist.
The review file shall be referred to a review committee. On the basis of all
evidence in the review file including the report from an ad hoc review committee,
if any, the review committee will submit a comprehensive report and
recommendation for action to the designated University official.
In conducting its review and arriving at its recommendation concerning a
candidate, each review committee shall be guided by the criteria.
The report of the review committee(s) shall be submitted to the
University's deciding officer.
The deliberations and recommendations of the review committees are to
be strictly confidential.
In cases of promotion, conferral of career status, or recommendation for
termination of appointment, if the preliminary assessment of the University's
deciding officer is contrary to the recommendations of the review committee, the
University's deciding officer shall notify that committee with respect to the
assessment. The review committee shall be given the opportunity for further
comment before the final decision is made.
In a case of promotion, conferral of career status or recommendation for
termination of appointment, if the University's deciding officer's preliminary
assessment is to terminate appointment or not to confer career status, the
candidate shall be notified of the opportunity to request access to records in the
academic review file, subject to Article 5, Personnel Files. The candidate and
review initiator shall then have the opportunity to respond in writing and to
provide additional information and documentation.
The designated University official shall inform the candidate in writing of the final
administrative decision. Upon request, a candidate may receive, from the
University's deciding officer, a written statement of the reasons for his/her
decision and, if requested, a redacted copy of the confidential documents in the
academic review file. Such a statement shall not disclose the identities of
persons who were sources of confidential documents.
The arbitrator shall have the authority to determine whether the University has
violated a procedure set forth herein. However, in any grievance alleging a
violation of this Article, the arbitrator shall not have the authority to review any
decision to:
Initiate an academic review;
Award or deny a merit increase;
Award or deny a promotion;
Award or withhold career status;
Terminate a librarian following academic review.
If the arbitrator finds that the alleged violation had a material, negative impact on
the outcome of the review, the arbitrator's remedy shall be limited to directing the
University to repeat, to the extent practicable, the review process from the point
at which the violation occurred.
