ULS FACULTY LIBRARIAN PEER REVIEW AND MENTORING Margarete Bower Chemistry Library.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Promotion & Tenure Notes 1/2011 Resources – –
Advertisements

Promotion and Tenure Workshop 1. Evaluation Procedure There is only one evaluation procedure leading to recommendations regarding promotion, tenure and.
Tenure is awarded when the candidate successfully demonstrates meritorious performance in teaching, research/scholarly/creative accomplishment and service.
Presenters: Maureen Chalmers (NWCC) and Terry Delaney(TRCC)
UNLV FACULTY SENATE TENURE & PROMOTION FORUM Oct. 2, 2012 Oct. 2, 2012 Thanks to the Past Chairs: Dr. John Filler Dr. Ceci Maldonado Dr. Nasser Daneshvary.
Promotion & Tenure New Faculty Workshop December 7, 2012.
Promotion and Tenure Workshop for MUSM Faculty A Faculty Development Opportunity Mercer University School of Medicine 2012.
Proposed Revisions to Section 5 (Review & Evaluation of Faculty Performance) of the Faculty Handbook Spring, T&P Oversight Committee Office.
 UAFT *Collective Bargaining Agreement – Article 5  UNAC * Collective Bargaining Agreement – Article 9 Can access through Faculty Services website at:
Promotion and Tenure Planning Workshop Spring 2013 Susan S. Williams Vice Provost for Academic Policy and Faculty Resources.
2015 Workshop Permanent Status and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview.
Promotion & Tenure Workshop The Dossier. What the Committee Looks for: I nnovation I nitiative I mpact.
Senior Appointments Committee J. M. Friedman, MD, PhD.
McLean Promotion to Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School Maureen T. Connelly, MD, MPH McLean Hospital February 3, 2010.
Writing Your Self-Review: a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop 2009.
Kim Gingerich, Assistant to V-P, Academic & Provost Lisa Weber, Administrative Secretary, Dean of Science Marie Armstrong, Associate University Secretary.
Promotion and Tenure Lois J. Geist, M.D. Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development.
Presented by the Faculty Affairs Office September 2013.
The P&T Process Roles of the Candidate, Supervisor and P&T Committee.
Promotion and Tenure for Chairs, Heads, & Administrators: Twin Cities Arlene Carney Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs.
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate June 12, 2014.
Presented by the Faculty Affairs Office September 2013.
Promotion in the Clinical Track Lois J. Geist, M.D. Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development.
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPARTMENTAL RPT COMMITTEE WORKSHOP September 26 and September.
College of Liberal Arts Tenure and Promotion workshop: PROCEDURES AND POLICIES 17 October 2014.
PROMOTION AND TENURE: THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD. WHAT ARE THE RANKS? WHAT DO THEY MEAN? ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR PROFESSOR –NOT THE “PHILOSOPAUSE”
Promotion Process A how-to for DEOs. How is a promotion review initiated? Required in the final probationary year of a tenure track appointment (year.
Preparing for the renewal and tenure processes Bernard Robaire Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics MAUT Tenure Workshop April 24, 2015 – Faculty.
1 Faculty Motivation and Policies Steven R. Hall Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair of the MIT Faculty.
Changes in the Faculty Review Process for United Academics Faculty Presenter: Patricia Linton, College of Arts & Sciences.
Promotions on the Clinician Educator Track Larry L. Swift, Ph.D. Vice Chair for Faculty Affairs Department of Pathology, Microbiology & Immunology.
T&P Guideline Review. T&P Guideline Goals Clear set of guidelines and procedures leading to tenure and promotion to assistant professor – Annual Review.
Report to the Faculty Senate April 14, 2009 Bryan L. Spangelo, Chair.
Performance Management A briefing for new managers.
Matthew L. S. Gboku DDG/Research Coordinator Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute Presentation at the SLARI Annual Retreat 26 – 28 October, 2015.
INSTRUCTIONAL ACADEMIC STAFF PROMOTION DENISE EHLEN, ASSEMBLY CHAIR CURT WEBER, PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR.
Peer Review Documentation Workshop October 23, 2006 PRDW Committee: Keri Botello Cristina Favretto Hannah M. Walker.
RETENTION, TENURE, PROMOTION WORKSHOP Presented by the Faculty Affairs Office September 2012.
Assessment of Student Learning: Phase III OSU-Okmulgee’s Evidence of Student Learning.
TCNJ 2015 Promotion & Reappointment Document Faculty Information Forum November 12-13, 2015.
Standards of Achievement for Professional Advancement District 2 Career Ladder Training April 29, 2016 Ronda Alexander & Michael Clawson.
FACULTY PROMOTION REVIEW Faculty hired in former UK Personnel System or prior to 2004 in a Community College Grandfathered under Format.
2016 A&P Workshop Evaluation Rob Leeds. III. EVALUATION –Include all peer teaching letters as per OSUE guidelines beginning with 2011 –You will have to.
An Overview of the Promotion & Tenure Process UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY NEW FACULTY ORIENTATION AUGUST 20, 2015 KATIE CARDARELLI, PHD ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR ACADEMIC.
Faculty annual reviews at the iSchool Summary by Steve Sawyer 19 February, 2016 For discussion.
Tenure and Promotion at University of Toledo
Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Processes and Procedures
Promotion: Policy and Procedures for COM Faculty in State College
PAc-17 Sabbatical Leave of Absence
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Faculty Toolkit: Promotion & Tenure
Lia Lowrie, MD Professor of Pediatrics
Report of the Personnel Committee on Promotion and Tenure Procedures
Promotion in Extension Presented by: Ken Martin, Ph. D
Lia Lowrie, MD Professor of Pediatrics
We’re going to follow the chronological order of the process.
RTP For new faculty A brief introduction.
Achieving Tenure and Promotion
Personnel Committee Personnel Committee has considered three issues related to the NTT faculty. Hiring Promotion Termination 1.
2016 Tenure and Promotion Workshop Policy and Procedures Overview
SCC Tenure Process November 9, 2016.
Promotion/Tenure Portfolio
Faculty Promotions Information Meeting
University Bylaws Committee
Presenters: Maureen Chalmers (NWCC) and Steve Krevisky (MXCC)
Promotions on the Physician Scientist/Basic Science Investigator Track
Lecture Track Faculty Reappointment & Promotion ECAS
THE FACULTY HIRING PROCESS
PAc-28 Educational Leave of Absence
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Presentation transcript:

ULS FACULTY LIBRARIAN PEER REVIEW AND MENTORING Margarete Bower Chemistry Library

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SYSTEM  Faculty Librarians  Master’s in Library Science required  Staff  No library degree required  Public services, technical services, and administrative support

MODELS FOR ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS  Full Faculty Status  Same review criteria and professional ranks as academic faculty  Tenure  Academic Status  Equally rigorous evaluation and review criteria  “Expectation of continuing employment”  Staff Status  Usually on a contract basis

Standards and Guidelines of the Association of College and Research Libraries (a division of the American Library Association) delinestopic.htm delinestopic.htm  Includes:  Guidelines for Academic Status for College and University Librarians  Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians

OUTSIDE THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS  Search Committees  Annual Reviews  Librarian  Writes a self-assessment for previous year’s work and accomplishments  Job performance, professional development, service  Suggests goals for the coming year  Supervisor  Writes review letter  Provides guidance to librarian working toward the next peer review  Review meeting

ULS PEER REVIEW PROCESS Guidelines for Faculty Librarians: Appointment, Review, Promotion, and Appeal

FACULTY LIBRARIAN RANKS EXPECTATION STREAM  Librarian I  Entry level; no prior experience required; M.L.S. required  Librarian II  At least 3 years experience; demonstrated progress in job  Librarian III  At least 3 years as Librarian II; consistent high-level accomplishment; evidence of continuing growth  Librarian IV ( optional )  At least 3 years as Librarian III; performance exceeds standards for Librarian III; authoritative knowledge; superior professional leadership and contributions

NON-EXPECTATION STREAM LIBRARIANS  Temporary Appointments  Special Projects

PEER REVIEW SCHEDULE  Appointment – Peer review if “expectation” is granted with appointment  Third-year review – Reappointment and promotion from Librarian I to II  Sixth-year review – Expectation of Continuing Employment and promotion to Librarian III  Promotional review to Librarian IV – At least 3 years after Librarian III (optional review)

PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC)  Nine members  Two-years terms  Alternate electing five members and four  All have “Expectation of Continuing Employment”

REVIEW CRITERIA  Credentials – degree, time of service in position  Job Performance  Professional development and contributions  Service

REVIEW MATERIALS  Faculty librarian’s dossier  Resume  Job descriptions  Personal narrative statement  Examples of work done  Unsolicited letters from faculty, colleagues, etc.  Any other documentation supporting the review

 Administrative Personnel File - maintained in the director’s office  Resume  Job descriptions  Annual reviews  Supervisor’s letter  All review committee reports  Letters solicited by the review committee

 Outside evaluation letters  Solicited by the PRC  Librarian may suggest three names  “Internal” letters – from the University outside the ULS Evaluate librarian’s work and interactions  “External” letters – from ARL librarians if possible Evaluate professional contributions based on a packet of material sent by the PRC  Personal Interview – not done routinely

TWO-LEVEL REVIEW  Level I Committee (5 members)  Librarians with expectation  Same department or related jobs (excludes supervisors and supervisees)  Access to the librarian’s dossier  Report goes to the administrative file  Level II Committee  Full Peer Review Committee (excludes supervisors and supervisees)  Access to librarian’s dossier, administrative file, supervisor’s letter, Level I committee report, and any solicited evaluation letters  Report goes to the administrative file

 Committees can request further information or clarification from the librarian if needed  Review is based on:  Past accomplishments  Potential for meeting criteria for the next review  Potential for continued professional growth and contributions

KEY ROLES  Librarian  Be aware of timeline  Prepare the dossier  Write a narrative statement  Suggest names of outside reviewers if requested  Supervisor  Mentor librarian  Write evaluation letter for the review

 Chair of PRC  Manage the process for all reviews done  Consult with Director to set up review committees  Consult with Director to select outside evaluators  Solicit outside evaluation letters  PRC review coordinator  Member of PRC  Contact person for librarian, supervisor, and Level I committee  Write PRC report

 ULS Director  Approve Level I review committee selection  Approve outside evaluators  Receive Level I and Level II committee reports  Review the dossier and administrative file  Make a recommendation to the Provost

Schematic Process for a Sixth-Year Review Level I Dossier Level II Report Dossier Administrative File Supervisor letter Evaluation letters ULS Director Provost Report

MENTORING  Supervisor has primary responsibility  PRC Ad Hoc Mentoring Committee  PRC members who just finished their PRC term  One-year term  Open meetings  Review dossiers and narrative statements  Guidelines for dossiers and narrative statements  Writing and Speaking Support Group