Point Recommendations: An Essential Part of Librarian Peer Review

The recent librarian negotiations between UC-AFT and the university that resulted in the new point salary scale replacing the step salary scale included discussion about the rationale for moving to a more flexible scale, and assurance that the actual peer review process would not be affected by the change in the salary scale. The peer review process has always included the right of the librarian to request additional steps in the review, and the right of the review initiator (RI) to recommend advancement of more than one step. UC-AFT believes that new point scale does not alter the RI’s ability to recommend the number of points to be awarded, nor a librarian’s right to request more than the guaranteed minimum number of points (two points at the Assistant/Associate rank and three points at the Librarian rank).

The flexibility of the new point system should not be a deterrent to any level (candidate, RI or the peer review committee) from making a recommendation regarding a specific number of points to be awarded. As professionals and academics, we make judgments regarding performance reviews. Under the old step system, a judgment was made as to the level of performance warranting a single step (normal) or more than a single step (accelerated) increase in pay. The new point system allows for the candidate who has done significantly more than a normal review, but less than a full step under the old system to be awarded a point or two depending on their rank. A librarian whose performance has been judged to be deserving of more than a normal increase could be awarded an additional point or two.

The university is recommending model language for RIs that is being interpreted as prohibiting them from recommending a specific number of points in a review. Instead, the language guides them to indicate only whether the candidate should receive a “standard/normal” or “greater-than-standard merit increase.” Some campuses are insisting that candidates and peer review committees utilize the same language, leaving the deciding official (often the UL) with no specific recommendation on the number of points to be awarded.

The university is directing the campuses to remove librarian requests and RI recommendations for a specific number of points from review files. UC-AFT has filed two grievances over this matter to date. At Davis, the library administration reversed course and has now allowed review files to proceed with RI recommendations intact.  The grievance filed at UCSB may be sent to UCOP for system wide resolution.

Accelerations (where the review was on schedule, but you advanced more than one step) exist in a different form under the point system.  Instead of an acceleration, one simply requests a greater-than-minimum number of points.  There is no maximum number of extra points you can request. Librarians need to be free to request this type of advancement.

It is important for librarians to retain the right to request additional points for two key reasons.  First, during the life of this contract the possibility of advancement prior to the typical review schedule has been removed.  This means that acceleration in time is not possible.  The only means for acceleration available to librarians is to advance by a greater-than-minimum number of points. Second, the real strength of the peer review process is the full involvement of rank and file librarians throughout the process.  The full involvement of the librarian and the peers and supervisors involved in the peer review process demands that everyone involved participate fully to include making specific point recommendations.

Librarians under review can and should request acceleration in the form of additional points when their performance record justifies such an action. RIs can, and should, support their qualitative recommendations with a numerical point recommendation, and the review committee should be able to include the number of points in their reports.  Anything short of this level of involvement at every step of the review will be a degradation of the peer review process.

There is NOTHING in the new MOU that prevents you, or your RI, or your peer-review committee from recommending a specific number of points.  UC-AFT will work to ensure that campus review committees understand that the MOU requirement for “a comprehensive report and recommendation for action” includes a recommendation on the number of points to award.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:  It is more important than ever that you make the case for the level of merit increase you deserve in your personal statement.  Be sure to specify the number of points you think you deserve based on your performance.