Date: April 11, 2002

To: Maureen Russell, LAUC-LA Chair

From: Rhonda K. Lawrence

LAUC-LA Representative to the LAUC Statewide Professional Governance Committee

Re:      Mid-year 2002 Report

Members of the Committee: Co-Chairs: Ginny Irving, UC Berkeley and Raphaela Castro, UC Davis; Barb Lucas , UC Irvine;  Rhonda Lawrence, UCLA; Kuei Chiu, UC Riverside; Laura Galvan-Estrada, UC San Diego; Keir Reavie, UCSF; Cathy Chiu, UC Santa Barbara; Karen Mokrzycki , UC Santa Cruz

A summary of the work of this committee follows.  Much of this text has been excerpted from LAUC President Debbie Murphy’s charge and Ginny Irving’s e-mail of April 8, 2002 to the Committee.

Last year, the Committee discussed criteria for the Distinguished Librarian designation, specifically looking at issues related to support for librarian activities in Criteria 2-4.  At our two meetings in 2001 there was considerable discussion of issues related to this topic (e.g. should the distinguished designation occur at a particular step, what criteria are used to evaluate a career, etc.).  The Committee has been charged with continuing the work of last year's committee to develop and conduct a survey of the LAUC membership on what direction LAUC should take in addressing the distinguished step in the Librarian Series. 

In addition, the Committee has been charged with continuing the process started by last year’s Committee of revising LAUC Position Paper #1 in light of the recent changes to the librarian salary scale, and in relation to the upcoming survey on the distinguished step.  A proposed revision of Position Paper #1 might be sent as part of the survey, or redrafted after the results of the survey have been compiled.

A meeting was held in Oakland on February 28 at the UCOP office to discuss these issues.  I was unable to attend, so Ruby Meraz Gutierrez, Chair of the LAUC-LA Committee on Professional Governance, attended in my absence.

At the February 28 meeting, an issues paper (a revised version of which is at then end of this document) was distributed that summarizes the Committee's discussions for the last 1 1/2 years about the distinguished step.  (We are trying not to use "barrier step" because we would like to see this negative phrase dropped from our review vocabulary, although we recognize that it is in fact viewed this way on some campuses by the final decision-makers.)  

We also reviewed Debbie Murphy’s three questions that were sent to the ULs in January 2002.

1. Should there be a Distinguished designation?

2. Should the Distinguished designation be tied to a specific step?

3. Should the Distinguished designation be moved to the top of the scale

(Step 7)?

As discussed at the February meeting, the purpose of the survey is to help the Committee in revising Position Paper #1, especially regarding the distinguished step.   We thought we should ask these three questions in some form in our survey.  As to the format of the survey, those members present at the 2/28 meeting felt a "yes" or "no" answer would be easy to tally, which is why the questions are structured as they are.  The committee members present at the meeting wanted to be able to easily quantify the answers and preferred simple yes- no responses.  They looked for numbers of people that either support or don't support the concept of having a 'distinguished step' and clarity about the standards to be applied in reaching that step.  In response to a revision of the survey that I developed and circulated, some committee members stated that we were not charged with conducting a more in-depth survey that required answers in degrees of support, and it was unclear to some of them how the data could be compiled and used.  Therefore the 5 scale version that I developed as a counter proposal will not be used.

At this time it appears that the survey will be a simple one, with a few questions.  I remain concerned that it will not properly elicit the degree of support or non-support for our positions, and therefore will produce murky numbers.  It is not yet decided when the survey would be conducted.

Respectfully submitted,

Rhonda Lawrence

ISSUES CONCERNING THE DISTINGUISHED DESIGNATION DISCUSSED BY LAUC COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE, 2001

1.  Placement of the distinguished step

1. Eliminate it altogether.
2. Place it at step VII.
3. Place it at step VI.
4. Allow it to float, i.e., decouple it from a particular rank and step, so that a librarian could achieve the designation:

i. Anywhere in the series

ii. Anywhere in the full Librarian rank

iii. Anywhere from Librarian VI – VII

2. Relationship of distinguished designation to salary

1. Continue to require achieving the distinguished designation as a prerequisite to advancement into the top step(s) of the full Librarian rank.
2. Consider other ways to acknowledge a person’s career than through salary; decouple achievement of the distinguished designation from salary. The distinguished designation could be awarded locally or statewide outside the peer review process as a recognition separate from salary.  It could include a stipend.

3. Criteria for the distinguished designation

1. The “capstone” achievement:

i. Should it be eliminated?

ii. If kept, at what step?  (currently in last review period)

iii. Decouple from a particular step?  A capstone achievement might happen earlier in a librarian’s career.

iv. What criteria should be paramount for the capstone achievement: criteria 2-4 or 1?  Or does it matter?

2. “Career history of outstanding service” or “distinguished career history”

i. Mainly criterion 1?

ii. Mainly criteria 2-4?

iii. Balance of 1-4?

3. Local vs. regional vs. national vs. international achievements

Ginny Irving, Co-Chair

LAUC Committee on

Professional Governance

4/4/02 Revision