Flo Wilson (chair), Martin Cerjan, John Haar (recorder), Bill Hook, Juanita Murray, Tracy Primich, Holling Smith-Borne, Sharon Weiner. Guests: Paul Gherman, Lisa Shipman

Paul joined the group for a discussion of the collection responsibilities John Haar has fulfilled as Associate University Librarian for Collections. John had prepared a summary of the major responsibilities he has filled related to collections. Paul indicated that while there has been a decision to move some of his responsibilities, notably those related to the licensing of electronic resources, to Roberta Winjum, he had decided not to link the AUL for Collection Development with the Central Director’s position. There is some time to reflect on how those responsibilities might be handled, whether those would be reassigned internally either temporarily or permanently.

Paul outlined several options that have been discussed. One would be for the system wide collections responsibilities to go to the Central collections development position. Though that would move them below a library director level, and that might make the role more difficult for negotiating multi-library purchases and proposing cost sharing allocations.

A second option could be to ask one of the Library Directors to assume these tasks, under the rubric of accepting system wide responsibilities. This in the same way that the Central Director is going to manage ILL, a system wide service, and Bill Hook manages Copy/Printing for the system.

Various issues and questions were discussed about how such might work. The model of directors participating in system-wide management as a part of the expectation for directors was discussed briefly. Numerous questions about overlap with the licensing responsibilities Roberta will have were raised.

After the discussion the question was asked, what is the desired outcome of this conversation? Are you looking for expressions of interest from directors if they would want to do this? Paul indicated that no decision needed to be made today; we have time to reflect on it. He said he would be happy to hear from anyone later if they were interested, or had further thoughts about it.

Lisa distributed a handout with the revised performance evaluation procedures. She reviewed the decisions that were made at the last management retreat in August. There the decision had been made to revise the ratings scale from a 5 level scale (Exemplary, Commendable to Excellent, Good to Commendable, Improvement Needed, and Unsatisfactory) to 3 (Exemplary Service, Meets Expectations, and Below Expectations), to reflect a simpler scale more in keeping with the way ratings had actually been awarded in practice. A second decision had been that the merit awards would be nominations from among those who were rated in the top category (Exemplary). Specific criteria for what would qualify someone to receive a merit award were devised and are included in the document (also posted on the staffweb) with the ratings scale. A third decision, in part responding to comments from staff in a subsequent presentation about the changes, is to explicitly include the staff members rating in the supervisor’s evaluation document. This way staff will know how they have been rated.

Another change reflected in the procedure is the requirement that supervisors share their evaluation with their Director (or their own supervisor if not the director) before meeting with the staff member. This will provide an opportunity for discussion about the rating, and consideration of which staff might be nominated for a merit award.

Lisa asked if there were questions about the procedure.

Answer: The process must be completed and the evaluations to Lisa’s office by the last working day in April. Directors and supervisors should develop a time line backwards to allow all evaluations and conversations to be completed by then. That will vary from department to department.

Answer: That can be somewhat flexible, look at when the evaluation was performed last year, and determine the appropriate year long interval to include.

Answer: Yes the revised forms, the new procedures and the ratings scale are linked from the Heard staffweb page.

Answer: Lisa strongly prefers that the process and timeline be communicated to the staff of each unit by the director. Larger units may need a more structured timeline where there may be layers of supervisors, while smaller units may not need such a structured timeline.

It was suggested that perhaps a newsletter blurb about the changes and that the time for evaluations is close at hand might be appropriate.

Answer: Lisa will announce a training date scheduled for early March. More sessions can be arranged, if necessary.

Answer: The supervisor’s evaluation is the only document needed. But it means that the supervisor should reflect clearly in the evaluation text, the accomplishments or reasons why a merit award would be appropriate.

Answer: Last year most of the ratings were Commendable to Excellent and Exemplary. We clearly have an able and dedicated staff. There is no expectation these will be a bell curve. Having said that, we talked at the retreat about the fact that “meets expectations” should not be viewed as a bad performance rating. And that the higher in the organization, or that mature professionals well established in their jobs, should be held to a higher standard to be considered exemplary. non-exempt positions should be evaluated by appropriate expectations for what might be exemplary, and what might qualify for a merit award, given fewer opportunities to manage projects or propose grants.

Paul reiterated that the higher in the organization the harder it should be to get a Merit award, since performance expectations of managers should be high just to “meet expectations”. We agreed at the August retreat that Directors and administrators of the system should not be eligible for merit awards at all.

Flo recapped that the merit award is given as a lump sum, added to the staff member’s salary increase, not a percentage award. So the lump sum has a larger percentage impact for staff with lower salaries, than for those making more money.

It was also mentioned that equity adjustments are also funded from the ½% of the pool taken for merit awards.

Answer: The salary increase system uses a mathematical model that determines the actual percentage increases that can be funded, based on how many individuals get which rating. All persons rated in the same level will receive the same percentage increase.

Salary letters are prepared by the office of the Director for Administrative Services. They are signed by Paul Gherman and provided to Directors for any comments, if desired. They are returned to Lisa’s office and all mailed at the same time, during the last week of June.