Revised, September 1993
Revised, April 2001
Revised, December 2014
LIBRARIAN REVIEW PROCESS: OVERVIEW
A. Compiling Documentation (candidate and review initiator)
1. Candidate and review initiator consult. Candidate prepares self
evaluation and review initiator begins assembling candidate's dossier.
If letters of reference are appropriate, candidate provides review
initiator a list of persons from whom letters may be solicited.
Review initiator may solicit any number of letters and is not bound by
candidate's list. Review initiator receives letters, which are
confidential,and takes them into account in arriving at a comprehensive
evaluation of candidate.
Candidate submits self evaluation and supporting documentation to
2. Review initiator arrives at a tentative recommendation and discusses
it with candidate and with appropriate administrative reviewer(s):e.g.,
department head, AUL, UL, dean, director.
Review initiator writes a final evaluation and recommendation,addressing
as fully as possible concerns and issues raised by candidate and by
administrative reviewers consulted.
Candidate signs the final evaluation/recommendation and may respond in
writing. Candidate may request redacted copies of confidential solicited
letters and respond in writing.
3. If review initiator is not the department head (or affiliated library
equivalent), review initiator submits dossier to that person, whose
comments are added to the file. The comment may consist of
a signature indicating agreement with review initiator's recommendation
or a narrative statement. If the comments were added, candidate receives a copy
and may respond in writing.
In The Library, dossier is forwarded to additional administrative
reviewers as appropriate; dossier is forwarded to Library Human
Resources Department (LHRD); candidate reviews documentation checklist
and signs certification statement.
In affiliated libraries, dossier is certified and receives final review per local unit
procedures. APO forwards affiliated library dossiers to LHRD.
B. Peer and Administrative Review (CAPA, ad hoc committees, other
1. LHRD makes all cases available to CAPA and promotion and career status cases
available to ad hoc committees.
2. For promotion and career status reviews, CAPA nominates ad hoc
review committee members and conveners. Final decision makers make
Ad hoc committee convenes, reviews dossier, writes recommendation
to final decision maker and places the letter in the dossier.
3. CAPA reviews all dossiers, including the statements of administrative
reviewers and ad hoc committees,and makes recommendation to final
In the course of their deliberations peer review committees, AULs and
final decision makers may request additional information. Candidate is
notified if material is added to the review file and may request
redacted copies. Candidate may respond in writing.
C. Final Decision (final decision maker: University Librarian or
Vice Provost for the Faculty in affiliated library cases)
1. CAPA may confer with University Librarian regarding cases in the Library.
2. CAPA may confer with Vice Provost regarding cases in the
3. Final decision maker decides and informs candidate in a letter, with a
copy to CAPA.
D. Reconsideration Process (final decision maker: Vice Provost)
1. Candidate may request redacted copies of all confidential material in
the review file (which at this stage would include CAPA and ad hoc
Candidate may request an informal meeting with the University Librarian,
or, in affiliated library cases, with the dean or director.
2. Candidate makes decision whether to proceed with a formal petition for reconsideration.
In a formal petition, candidate's letter of petition is added to original
dossier, along with summaries of confidential material that may have
been requested. CAPA reviews file and makes recommendation to University Librarian
or Vice Provost.
3. Vice Provost either upholds or overturns earlier decision;
candidate, CAPA and University Librarian (when case involves The Library)
are informed in writing.
In affiliated library cases Vice Provost decides both the initial case and the petition.