UC Berkeley Librarian Academic Review FAQ

I. CANDIDATES

A. What are the deadlines for turning in materials?

  1. Links to Calendars
    The calendars of exact due dates for the review process are issued annually and posted at the Library Human Resources Department (LHRD) or for affiliated librarians at the Academic Personnel Office (APO) websites.

  2. When is the dossier due?
    For Promotion or Career Status reviews speak to your Review Initiator and assemble your documents in early November.
    The Review Initiator must submit all documentation to LHRD or APO by mid-February. See calendar links above for exact due dates.

    For Merit and Special reviews confer with your Review Initiator and begin to assemble your documents in November.
    The Review Initiator must submit all documentation to LHRD or APO by mid-March. See calendar links above for exact due dates.

  3. What if my dossier is late?
    Late dossiers seriously disadvantage both the candidate and the peer review process by limiting CAPA's ability to review dossiers at comparable appointment levels. See Procedures for Review of Librarian Appointments, Promotions, and Advancement and Administrative Review Procedures for Librarians Requesting a Reconsideration of a Salary or Promotion Decision (commonly called the Berkeley Procedures) Section VI.A.4. One factor which will be considered in assessing the professional competence and judgment of individuals involved in the peer review process is their effectiveness in preparing and submitting documentation required as part of this process. Section VI.B.1.c. If a candidate fails, by two weeks before the final deadline, to provide the review initiator with a self-evaluation or to secure an extension, the review initiator will complete his/her review and forward the review dossier as usual. The maximum extension past the final deadline is thirty days.
  4. How do I request an extension of the deadline?
    A request for an extension of the timetable must be in writing with an explanation of the unforeseen circumstance that requires an extension of the timetable. Submit the request to your Review Initiator as early as possible in the review cycle. Authorization must be secured no later than three weeks before the deadline. The maximum extension past the final deadline is thirty days. The request will become part of the candidate's file. The person who grants the extension must notify LHRD or APO promptly. Berkeley Procedures, VI.B.1.c.
  5. When do I ask for a one-year deferral?
    A deferral is a neutral action that is appropriate in the case of a prolonged absence or other unusual circumstance and that can only be initiated with the written agreement of the candidate. It is not granted automatically. The candidate, the review initiator, and CAPA must put their recommendations regarding a proposed deferral in writing for a final decision by the University Librarian or the Vice Provost for the Faculty (for Affiliated librarians). A deferral can only be granted for one year at a time. See Berkeley Procedures, VI.B.2.; Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 360-80 a.(2)(c) Memorandum of Understanding ...Professional Librarian Unit (MOU) Article 4.E.2.c.

    All proposed deferrals of a promotion or career status review must be submitted by the candidate and the Review Initiator to CAPA by mid-November at the latest. The candidate and the Review Initiator have until January to submit to CAPA a request for a deferral of a merit increase review. LHRD and APO must also be notified at the same time. See the appropriate timetables for specific dates. The decision whether to grant a deferral rests with the University Librarian or the Vice Provost for the Faculty (for Affiliated librarians).

  6. What is a greater than standard merit review and when should I ask for one?
    A greater than standard review is one in which the Review Initiator or Candidate requests more than the usual two steps for Assistant and Associate Librarians; or more than the usual three steps for Librarians.
    A greater than standard merit review (referred to as an accelerated review in the APM) should be considered in cases of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth. [O]utstanding achievement is grounds for accelerated advancement by means of ... merit review for a greater than standard increase. Berkeley Procedures, III.B.2. 
    A greater than standard merit review follows the Academic Merit and Special Reviews calendar (LHRD) and Affiliated Librarians - Timetables: Merits and Special Reviews (APO).

  7. What is an off-cycle review and when should I ask for one?
    An off-cycle review is one that takes place earlier than the standard two years (for Assistant and Associate Librarians) or three years (for Librarians).
    An off-cycle review (referred to as "accelerated review" in the APM) should be considered in cases of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth. [O]utstanding achievement is grounds for accelerated advancement by means of an off-cycle review. Berkeley Procedures, III.B.2. See also Berkeley Procedures, VI.B.1.d.
    An off-cycle review follows the Academic Merit and Special Reviews calendar (LHRD) and Affiliated Librarians - Timetables: Merits and Special Reviews (APO). You should discuss it with your Review Initiator, by mid-November, so that you can determine if, and from whom, confidential letters of support should be solicited.

B. What is the time period covered in a review?

  1. What is the review period for a merit increase in the Assistant or Associate Librarian rank?
    The review period is based upon the calendar year, not the University's fiscal year. (The advancement or salary increase, if awarded, will be effective at the beginning of the next fiscal year.)
    Therefore, a librarian on a two-year review cycle who plans to file a dossier in March 2020 will put together a dossier based upon achievements from January 2018 through December 2019.
  2. What is the review period for a merit increase in the Librarian rank?
    The review period is based upon the calendar year, not the University's fiscal year. (The advancement or salary increase, if awarded, will be effective at the beginning of the next fiscal year.)
    Therefore, a librarian on a three-year review cycle who plans to file a dossier in March 2020 will put together a dossier based upon achievements from January 2017 through December 2019. 
  3. What is the review period for a promotion or career status review?
    Promotion and/or career status reviews should evaluate a candidate's entire career as a librarian and not just the few years since the last review. It is appropriate in a career status review to evaluate the candidate's entire professional career, not just at Berkeley but also in prior employment, if any.

C. What are the criteria for review of the dossiers?

Follow the criteria for the type of review being requested: merit, career status, promotion, and greater than standard merit advancement or off-cycle (accelerated) advancement.

  1. What are the criteria applicable to all types of reviews?
    A candidate is judged, (1) above all else, on the basis of his or her professional competence and quality of service within the library; and, as relevant, on one or more of the following three criteria: (2) professional activity outside the library, (3) University and public service, and (4) research and other creative activity. An explanation of these criteria is set forth in APM 210-4.e(3). See also references to APM 210-4 in APM360-10 and in Berkeley Procedures, VI.A. 
  2. What are the criteria for a merit or special review?
    The above general criteria apply to both standard merit reviews and special reviews (in which no merit advancement is sought). A special review fulfills the requirement that librarians undergo periodic review (i.e., standard review), Berkeley Procedures, II.C.2.e, and accordingly the same criteria are applied in a special review as in a standard merit review.
  3. What are the criteria for a career status review?
    A candidate for career status must be fully reviewed in accordance with the above criteria for all reviews and candidates in potential career status are reviewed for performance, professional competence, achievement, and potential for further professional growthBerkeley Procedures VI.B.3., and APM360-17.b. A Career status review is only available within six years after initial appointment for an individual appointed at the rank of Assistant Librarian, between two and four years after initial appointment for an individual appointed at the rank of Associate Librarian, and between two and three years for an individual appointed at the rank of Librarian. See APM360-17.b. and Berkeley Procedures, VI.B. 
  4. What are the criteria for a promotion review?
    A candidate for promotion must be fully reviewed in accordance with the above criteria for all reviews, and [p]romotion is justified by demonstrated superior professional skills and achievement and, in addition, demonstrated professional growth and accomplishment and/or the assumption of increased responsibilityBerkeley Procedures VI.A.2
  5. What are the criteria for a greater than standard merit review or an off-cycle review?
    In addition to the above criteria for all reviews, a candidate seeking a greater than standard merit review or an off-cycle review (both of which are referred to broadly as an accelerated review in the APM) must demonstrate outstanding or unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth. [O]utstanding achievement is grounds for accelerated advancement. Berkeley Procedures, III.B.2. 

D. What needs to be included in the dossier?

  1. What should be in my self-evaluation?
    The self-evaluation is most effective when it is organized under headings related to the relevant criteria of review. The significant achievements of the period under review should be analyzed for their impact upon the goals of the candidate's department, the University or the profession. See Guidelines for Preparing Self-Evaluations. All librarians -- and especially Affiliated librarians, who may have unique responsibilities -- should include an introductory paragraph that explains the nature of their collection and a description of their position within the unit.
  2. What supporting documentation should I include?
    The supporting documentation should be carefully chosen and relevant to the period under review. Appropriate documents may include copies of articles written, other published materials, and significant electronic projects. The place for detailing all of your activities is the Biography Form 1501 or its equivalent (a detailed CV). The form is available online at http://las.lib.berkeley.edu/resources/biography-form-1501.
  3. When should I ask for letters of support?
    In cases of promotion review, career status review, and off-cycle reviews or reviews for greater than standard merit advancement, you should provide a list of names of persons who can comment upon your professional performance to your Review Initiator, by mid-November. The Review Initiator may or may not use all of these names. Such letters of evaluation are usually not necessary in normal merit reviews, but may be appropriate in certain cases. See APM360-80.e and Berkeley Procedures, VI.D.6.
    CAPA advises Review Initiators that typically three letters are used for career status and promotion cases; one or two may suffice to detail the outstanding achievement(s) on which an off-cycle or greater than standard merit review is based; it all depends upon the needs of each case for support of key achievements.
  4. What are my options to exclude input from certain individuals?
    You may provide the names of persons you wish to exclude and reasons why they may not objectively evaluate your qualifications or performance to your Review Initiator. This statement must be in writing and will be included in your file. See Berkeley Procedures, VI.D.6.a., APM360-80.f, and MOU Article 5.G.1.
    Please note that providing such a list does not preclude the Review Initiator from contacting these persons. The Review Initiator's decision whether or from whom to solicit letters is not subject to grievance or arbitration. Berkeley Procedures, VI.D.6.a. and MOU Article 5.G.1.
  5. Can I see the confidential letters? Can I respond to them?
    You may request redacted copies of confidential documents included in your dossier from LHRD or APO before the review process is completed (and/or afterwards). You may submit a written statement in response to, or commenting on, the material in your file before your file proceeds to CAPA. Berkeley Procedures, VI.D.6.d., APM360-80.g, and MOU Article 5.G.1.

E. What rules apply to whom?

  1. Memorandum of Understanding...Professional Librarian Unit (MOU)
    There is a collective bargaining agreement between The Regents of the University of California and the librarians represented -- with a few exceptions for certain supervisory employees -- by the University Council - American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT). This collective bargaining agreement, generally referred to as the MOU, is the basic legal contract between librarians and UC. The MOU governs the review process as applied to represented librarians. It specifically provides for local procedures at various points. Much of the language in our local procedures is adopted directly from the MOU. 
  2. Academic Personnel Manual (APM)
    The President of the University of California has issued policies and procedures pertaining to academic employees, including librarians, and UC. The APM applies to librarians covered by the MOU only to the extent provided for in the MOU. The APM governs the review process as applied to librarians not represented by UC-AFT. See APM Part II. Much of the language of the APM is derived from the MOU. 
  3. 'Berkeley Procedures
    These are our local procedures that implement the MOU and the APM. They mimic much of the language of the MOU and the APM, but they also name the specific groups and individuals who are responsible for various parts of the procedure and for decision-making. 
  4. Librarians Association of UC (LAUC)
    LAUC is an official unit of UC that includes all librarians, including the supervisory and management levels. LAUC's purpose is to advise the Office of the President, campus administration and library administration on matters relating to libraries and librarians, other than matters covered by the MOU and other union negotiations. LAUC does issue position papers on matters that affect all librarians at UC. 
  5. The Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Advancement (CAPA)
    CAPA is a standing committee of the Berkeley Division of LAUC (LAUC-B). CAPA consists of seven librarians who review and make recommendations to the University Librarian or the Vice Provost for the Faculty, as appropriate, for all cases of appointment, promotion, merit increase and career status. CAPA absolutely guards the confidentiality of individual review cases. Berkeley Procedures, IV.B.1.b. Current members of CAPA do not comment or give advice upon policies or procedures related to the review process.

F. Whom do I ask for help?

  1. Attend the annual peer review workshops every year, but especially in the year in which you are up for review. These are announced on the LAUC committee on Research and Professional Development and usually occur in October.
  2. The LHRD and APO web pages have helpful links to additional information and forms some of which are referred to in other parts of this FAQ.
  3. LAUC Mentors and past members of CAPA can also answer questions. The Historical Roster of CAPA Members is posted on the web.
  4. The LAUC-B Executive Committee runs a mentoring program, usually coordinated by ofe of the Library Representatives on the Committee. If you don't already have a mentor, you might contact the Library Representatives on the LAUC-B Executive Committee.