Ad Hoc Committee Orientation A LAUC-SD CAPA Workshop January 2015

Why have this workshop? All those in the librarian series with Career Status are eligible to serve on Ad Hocs YOU are highly likely to be called to serve on an Ad Hoc The responsibilities of an Ad Hoc may be found in ARPM IV.D

Why have Ad Hoc Committees (AHCs)? An Ad Hoc is a peer review group. Its report is as important as the other reviewers.

The role of the AHC Evaluates the candidate’s file documentation & reports its findings to CAPA Concurs/does not concur with PD recommendation AHC Report advises CAPA University Librarian Supervisory AUL Program Director Candidate

Which review actions do not require AHCs?

Appointments Standard merit increases No action

Which review actions require AHCs?

Career Status Promotion Greater than standard merit increase (additional points) Termination When requested by the Candidate, CAPA, PD, UL or AUL For non-represented librarians only: Off-cycle review Self-initiated action

Who serves on an AHC?

Every UC San Diego academic staff member in the Librarian Series is eligible ARPM II.D: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY It is a professional responsibility for each Librarian at UC San Diego to serve on Ad Hoc Committees. Some Librarians may serve on several such committees each year. A person may disqualify himself/herself, but only if s/he questions his/her ability to make an objective judgment in a particular case. Assistant, Associate and Librarian ranks Career status

Who cannot serve on an AHC? Librarians whom the candidate excludes on the Candidate’s Letter Request Form Current CAPA members CAPA members from the previous year Librarians who contribute confidential documentation to a review file, for two years

How do you benefit by serving on AHCs?

Learn how peer review process works See different ways one can write for and submit packet contents Appreciate colleagues’ accomplishments Meet and work with other librarians at UC San Diego

How are AHCs constituted? CAPA recommends teams of three plus one alternate for each file that needs an AHC Considers rank, functional areas of expertise of candidate and potential AHC members Considers academic review experience of potential AHC members UL appoints AHC for each file CAPA consults with UL on AHC composition, negotiates as needed Once CAPA & UL agree, CAPA notifies LHR (Doug) LHR (Doug) sends out the call

When you receive a call: Reply ASAP The slow responder convenes the first meeting! Consider: Are you available/unavailable to serve? Availability Objectivity ARPM IV.D.2: A person may disqualify himself/herself, but only if s/he questions his/her ability to make an objective judgment in a particular case, and CAPA shall recommend an alternate. Some years, you may serve more than once

Timing & Time Commitment AHCs typically are called from March-May Process typically takes 1-2 weeks, sometimes longer for complex files: Deliberation happens face to face, usually 1+ meetings Collaboration on writing happens via and/or face to face Signature on final copy done in LHR

Quick Turn-around is Essential AHC is an essential part of peer review & provides important input to CAPA. Treat AHC work as a priority. Do not dawdle: The rest of the process halts until the AHC report is in! If the AHC needs to request additional information, that request needs time to accommodate Act with the alacrity you’d want others to use if it were your AHC.

AHC duties Respond promptly to messages Read the review file Deliberate with the other AHC members Collaborate in writing the report Delete/destroy notes, drafts and file materials after process is complete

Confidentiality & Impartiality Keep all file information confidential Keep names of AHC members confidential Do not make copies of any part of a review file Maintain impartiality Limit consideration to what is included in the file and for the relevant review period

How to Prepare for an AHC Meeting Read: Your call to participate ARPM Section IV.D 2-4 (everything you want to know about AHCs) ARPM Appendix VII – Guidelines & Expectations for Merit IncreasesGuidelines & Expectations for Merit Increases ARPM Appendix VIII - The AHC ReportThe AHC Report The Candidate’s current file Any retrospective material (available for cases of Promotion, Career Status or Termination)

Process Convene ASAP Elect a Chair (facilitates meetings, coordinates drafts, communicates with CAPA, reports out to LHR, assures notes and previous drafts are destroyed/deleted) Assess the performance Complete a report Sign report (in LHR) Reply to any further request from CAPA for more information or clarification

Assessing the Performance Look at Candidate’s rank and proposed rank Consider the activity within the Criteria: IA and IB, IC or ID Appropriate for the rank? (the CAPA self review packet training materials can be helpful)CAPA self review packet Appropriate for the Candidate’s years of service and activity level of the Candidate’s peer group? Form an opinion, discuss specific evidence with the group Need more evidence? Ask for it. Agree or disagree with the PD’s recommendation Write a report citing evidence for AHC’s conclusion

Typical Report Face-to-face discussion takes about one 2-hour meeting Complicated reviews take longer, more face-to-face meetings Report is usually 1-2 paragraphs in length, citing evidence within the file Evidence?: use specifics and map to the Appendix VII language What demonstrates of high achievement and excellent performance? If addressing additional salary points: what indicates “unusual performance or exceptional contribution”

Possible Options Request further information from CAPA (via LHR) Ask for amplification or additional documentation AHC may specify from whom and what, specifically For PD & Candidate, ARPM Appendix III applies for additional information submitted Candidate, upon request, will have access to non-confidential content added to file Candidate and PD have opportunity to submit written statement in response to additions in the review record, before it goes back to AHC Consider your request carefully & professionally: This material becomes part of the official file Extra time & effort involved for several people vs. will the new information help with a decision?

Possible Options Everyone on AHC may not agree If not unanimous: Where there is a minority opinion, it may be written and submitted with the AHC Report

What Happens to the AHC Report? AHC report content becomes a part of the review file Candidate receives a copy of the report (without signatures) and/or may request it in future years

How are AHCs and CAPA alike? Both see confidential review files Both can ask for additional information and/or provide comments to the PD, Supervisory AUL, UL and Candidate Both write a report that is included in the Candidate’s file Both maintain confidentiality regarding the content of individual files

How do AHCs and CAPA differ? AHC membership is known only to CAPA, Admin Team and LHR AHCs only see individual files CAPA sees AHC report, but AHC does not see CAPA report

Questions about AHC Examples of inappropriate activity that should be reported: Non-objectivity, e.g., anti-candidate bias or undisclosed conflicts of interest Compromised confidentiality at any level of the process Report to CAPA Chair or LHR

2014/15 CAPA members Annelise Sklar, Chair Teri Vogel (2 nd year) Cristela Garcia-Spitz (1 st year) Dominique Turnbow (1 st year) Special thanks to LAUC-LA for its permission to adapt its Ad Hoc Committee Orientation document