February 28, 2017 Meeting of Academic Professional Promotion Implementation Team

Agenda not yet available.

Tom Teper, Tom Habing, JoAnn Jacoby, Greg Knott, Susan Schnuer, Jennifer Teper, Angela Waarala
Absent: Beth Namachchivaya

Susan Schnuer Proposal

Tom Teper opened the meeting with an open discussion regarding Susan Schnuer’s e-mail
proposal. The proposal is as follows:
I think there is a way to rethink our process for rating APs that would help us acheive the following
objectives:

1. Create a process that does not resemble the FRC process (Tom wants)
2. Get early buy-in from APs (Susan wants)
3. Reduce the amount of work for APPIT (everyone wants)
4. Possibly reduce the number of appeals (everyone wants)

This idea is based on two assumptions, both mentioned by Greg, hope that I got these right.

Assumption 1 – APs will not receive a pay boost after being rated, meaning that they will retain their
current salary. There will be no equity pay at this time.
Assumption 2 – Depending on your rating, you will be eligible for a finite number of promotions

1. Assistant – eligible for 3 promotions
2. Associate – eligible for 2 promotions
3. Senior- Associate – eligible for 1 promotion
4. Senior – not eligible for promotion

Assuming that I got the assumptions right, then we would ask the APs to submit three documents:

 job description
 CV/resume
 Self- rating – All APs would be asked to complete a self-rating and place themselves into one of
the four categories. We would also ask for a rating for each of the three areas – TDB (possibly
librarianship, leadership, scholarship) and then the AP would choose one overall category. They
would also write up to 500 words to justify their selection.
 Note: APs would only be eligible for the appeal process if they submitted all three documents

Why do I think this is a good idea?
Most APs know where they fit and would like to give their reasons for choosing that rating (buy-in). We
would be asking the APs to do the first review work, which would reduce the burden for committee
members. Most APs, with a good understanding of the two assumptions, are going to be very reasonable
in choosing a rating (my guess that over 60% will pick the right category).

If we went with this process, then APPIT would adopt the review process that Tom outlined. Two APPIT
members would be assigned to review a certain number of submissions. If the two reviewers agreed
with the AP self-assessment, then the review is complete. If the reviewers disagree with the AP rating,
then this submission would go to the entire APPIT committee for a more complete review. This twotiered
process means that APPIT can concentrate on the submissions that require deeper review and
attention, and I am guessing that we are talking less than 25. Please note that I tend to be an optimist!

If you think that this idea has merit, then APPIT would focus on creating promotional and review
materials for the process in the next month, launch everything by April 1. Have all APs turn in documents
by May 15 and have reviews completed by July.

 The group unanimously agreed that the majority of this proposal is a good idea.
 Greg Knott has gathered some “test files”, but did not share them yet because of Susan’s
proposal, it may not be necessary to review these files.
 The group unanimously agreed to send out a note to all AP’s requesting their vitae’s
within the next week.
 Tom Teper will reach out to GSLIS or someone else within the Library to offer assistance
with vitae updating.
 After some discussion, Susan suggested that if an AP does not submit a vitae, they will be
ranked by the committee, and give up the right to contest their placement.
 Greg suggested that the committee not use past performance reviews for evaluation.
 Jennifer asked “What happens when someone does not self-evaluate well, but does an
outstanding job?” “Should the group then speak with their supervisor?” Tom Teper
stated that the FRC assesses based on self-evaluation only. JoAnn stated that supervisors
should have the opportunity to give feedback on their employees. Not evaluate, just
asked to rank based on criteria. Susan agrees that supervisors input is fine, however, it
needs to be very transparent to the employee that their supervisor has input to the
committee. Susan also stated that the AP should know if their supervisor does not agree
with their self-assessment.
 Greg stated that annual performance reviews should not be used to rank individuals.
 Greg suggested that to simplify, the group gather all of the AP submittals, and then begin
assessing. In cases where there isn’t a clear picture, then reach out to the supervisors.
 It was suggested that a web form be created for AP’s to complete and attach their vitae’s
to. Greg volunteered to develop the form and asked for Susan’s assistance. Susan
suggested that the message on the form needs to focus on the promotional path, not the
status of the position.
 Tom Teper asked “Should we ask them to actually rank themselves or just complete the
form and write a narrative?” All agreed that self-ranking would be beneficial to the
group.
 Tom Teper will report the group’s progress at the faculty meeting next week.
 Tom Teper asked “How close are we to having a Forum?” Greg stated that he can have
the web form ready in about one week. The group decided that a set of Forums will be
scheduled in the next 3-4 weeks.
 Jennifer stated that the group needed a web presence with the committee’s Charge,
Minutes, etc. Tom responded that the web page is up and that the most recent minutes
are posted.
 Jennifer asked “Who will be drafting the call out to AP’s for updated vitae’s?” Tom
Teper stated that he will draft the note and send to the group for approval.
 Tom and Susan will hold a special L-CAP meeting Monday, March 6th at 9:00 a.m.
 The group unanimously agreed that they are on the right course to get everything
accomplished within the outlined timeline.

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 16th

Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.