1. zEllen Knight zOfelia Mujica zNorma Perez zKerry Scott zVirginia Valenzuela

2. zDevelop a plan to support and coordinate MAT work in the Fine Arts Branches, including staffing of all service sites zDetermine if MAT staff will contribute to the Reference Desk zDecide on the level of staff classification needed to meet the needs of customers

3. zReview the overall team structure and decide on changes that need to be made to meet the current and future needs of our customers. zMake recommendations after determining if MAT is staffed appropriately and at the right classifications to best meet our goals. zMake decisions regarding workflow, support of the Branches, and other identified MAT issues.

4. zTechnological advances and consolidation of the team’s service sites have made it necessary to analyze MAT’s organizational structure. Self-check machines On-line databases Circulation Maps, Media and Reserves (Traditional and Electronic) Electronic Reserves Current Periodicals, Newspapers and Microforms E-Journals & Newspapers Interlibrary Loan

5. ÊInconsistent level of reference service provided by MAT staff at the Fine Arts/Branches service sites ËClassification levels of MAT Fine Arts staff are inappropriate to the service requirements of the areas ÌMAT staff have expressed an interest in contributing to the Reference and Information Desks. Can we support this and still cover MAT service sites?

6. ÍTeam-wide staff classifications need to match current work responsibilities and reflect future work/needs of customers ÎThe same level and quality of service is not offered at all MAT service sites

7. ÊFine Arts Librarians agreed to provide Fine Arts MAT staff with site-specific reference training ËReclassified Fine Arts Staff to Library Specialists. This classification is appropriate to the service requirements of these sites ÌMAT staff will not contribute to the Reference or Information desks. Instead, MAT will provide *reference service at all MAT service sites R(limited to on-line resources).

8. zProblems 4 & 5 were addressed through a MAT-wide reclassification to the Library Specialist level zSee “Reclassification Process” for further explanation of the process used to reclassify MAT staff

9. g1 collection maintenance work team leader g2 circulation work team leaders g3 library specialists g3 library assistant seniors g3 library assistants < 1 maps, media and reserves work team leader < 1 current periodicals, newspapers and microforms work team leader < 5 library specialists < 3 library assistant seniors 1 work team leader 2 library specialists 3 library assistant snrs. 1 library assistant * 1 work team leader * 4 library specialists

10. g1 collection maintenance work team leader g1 fine arts specialist senior g1 circulation work team leaders g13 library specialists <1 work team leader <1 special collections specialist senior <9 library specialists * 1 work team leader * 4 library specialists

12. Currently each of these teams is in the process of writing their team charge.

13. jLibrary Specialist Expectations were used as a guide for self evaluation and goal setting. 9With the help of Library Human Resources (Michael Ray) individual work teams were able to put the expectations into the context of their functional work. jOnce a shared definition of the expectations was established the MAT team categorized them into expectations for “entry level” and “experienced” specialists. 9The existing Library Performance Measure Structure was used to guide the reclassification process.

14. XStaff were asked to set 2 performance or learning goals that demonstrated their ability to meet or exceed the team-defined specialist expectations. XIndividuals had peer review committees who offered guidance and feedback. XWork Team Leaders served as mentors to staff members to help guide the process

15. vA performance measure review committee (Checks & Balances) was formed to review staff goals and check for alignment and progress toward achieving those goals vEach non-Specialist was given 2 opportunities to present their goal portfolio to the Checks and Balances committee: October of 1999 and January of 2000 vFinal decisions for reclassification were made by the Checks & Balances Team

16. 3Work Team Leaders were reassigned in December of 1999 3Work Team Leaders were asked to choose their top two picks for reassignment and to answer a set of questions written by the MAT Restructuring Team and approved by Library Human Resources 3A group of non-MAT-representatives from stake-holder teams and one human resources representative, made the Work Team Leader reassignments based on the above documentation