I. GENERAL
A. This document (in all its parts) is intended to be used along with the Guidelines Effective July 1, 1999 and to clarify various points there. It is unofficial, and the PRC can modify it as necessary. In addition, it would be helpful if the PRC Chair would indicate in his/her annual report procedures that worked and ones that did not.
B. The term of the PRC is from July 1 through June 30.

I. C. ELECTIONS. It is the obligation and responsibility of all eligible librarians to serve ULS by at least running for election for PRC. This means no one may remove his/her name from the ballot unless he/she will be physically unable to serve (for example, expects to be on leave). Currently-serving Faculty Assembly committee members are to be included, as long as they are not serving as chairs.

Not eligible to run for election by virtue of their positions are the Director, Associate Director, Assistant Directors and Personnel Librarian or their equivalents. The Vice President/President Elect of the Faculty Assembly is also not eligible to run. However, they may vote.

Librarians who have received letters from the Provost stating that they have been granted Expectation of Continuing Employment as of a date on or before July 1 in the year of the election (or the beginning of the term of the PRC for that year) are eligible to be on the ballot. Librarians who have received letters from the Provost stating that they are granted Expectation, but as of a date after July 1 of that year, along with librarians whose reviews for Expectation have been completed but who have not yet received letters fromthe Provost, are not eligible. In other words, librarians must have Expectation as of the first day of the PRC term.

Librarians with joint appointments with other parts of the University (for example, an academic department) are eligible to run for election if they have Expectation and their primary appointment is in ULS. This specification agrees with the Faculty Handbook. Those running the election should be able to determine where the individual's primary appointment is by asking either the librarian in question or the Personnel Librarian.

If elected, a librarian is expected to serve his/her full term and to do his or her share of the work of the committee. Elected librarians who do not fulfill these responsibilities--again, unless they become physically unable to do so--will have a letter from the PRC Chair giving the details of this behavior sent to their supervisors, and it may also become part of their personnel files.

II. A. THE SEARCH PROCESS
The search committee should submit two reports to the Director in the course of the search:

1. A report evaluating all the candidates in general terms, and recommending the top candidates (approximately three) to be brought to campus for interviews. A sample of such a report is attached (Attachment B, pt. 2).

AFAS-L (African American Studies and Librarianship)
NATIVEPROFS-L (Native American)
EASTLIB (East Asian librarians)
REFORMA (Spanish-speaking librarians)

The search committee was composed of the following individuals [in alphabetical order]: Joseph Blow (Supervisor), William Gentz (Ex Officio), [2 other librarians], [staff member] (Staff) and Jane Doe (Chair).

[List qualifications committee was looking for, from position advertisement.]

We received [number] applications for the position. The only minorities we could identify among the applicants were both Asian; neither of them had very strong credentials for this position. [Will vary with applicant pool.]

The committee had [number] meeting[s] to determine a group to interview by phone. We divided the remaining applications into two groups: applications we would consider further if we needed to enlarge the pool; and applications we would not consider further. Three applications arrived after we had finished most of our phone interviews.

We interviewed the following candidates by phone, along with two or three of their references: [list candidates interviewed by phone].

Between the time of the phone interviews and the time of our next meeting, one of the interviewed applicants informed us she had accepted another position. We rejected one candidate on the basis of the phone interviews. None of the applications that arrived late merited inteviewing by phone. We were impressed enough with the remaining [number] candidates that we would like them to be invited for on-campus interviews. These candidates are [list].

A detailed breakdown of applicants will be found below.
Accepted Other Jobs

[Names in alphabetical order.]

[Names in alphabetical order. If these lists are too long, list in an attachment and refer to it here and below.]

[Names in alphabetical order]

1. [Candidate 1]

[Summary of qualifications, as bulleted list or in paragraph format]

[Summary of qualifications, as bulleted list or in paragraph format]

[Summary of qualifications, as bulleted list or in paragraph format]

cc: [Personnel Librarian]

ON PITT LETTERHEAD
TO: Rush Miller
FROM: Jane Doe, Chair, search committee for position Head, Obscure Foreign Language Collection
DATE:
SUBJECT: Final report on search

AFAS-L (African American Studies and Librarianship)
NATIVEPROFS-L (Native American)
EASTLIB (East Asian librarians)
REFORMA (Spanish-speaking librarians)

The search committee was composed of the following individuals [in alphabetical order]: Joseph Blow (Supervisor), [Personnel Librarian] (Ex Officio), [2 other librarians], [staff member] (Staff) and Jane Doe (Chair). We received [number] applications for the position. The only minorities we could identify among the applicants were both Asian; neither of them had very strong credentials for this position. [Will vary with applicant pool.] [Number] applicants were selected for telephone interviews. References for the [number] interviewees were also contacted.

Finalists for the position were:

The committee met on [date] to review the performance and qualifications of the candidates who interviewed for this position. [If true:] All the candidates meet or exceed the basic qualifications stated in the position announcement. [List how candidates meet or exceed. Can be bulleted lists.]

The committee was impressed with all three candidates, and feels that any of them could do the job well [assuming this is true]. Following is the committee's evaluation of each candidate's primary strengths and weaknesses. [List candidates in alphabetical order.]

Candidate 1

Strengths

[bulleted list is probably most effective]

Weaknesses

[bulleted list]

Candidate 2

Strengths

[bulleted list]

Weaknesses

[bulleted list]

Candidate 3

Strengths

[bulleted list]

Weaknesses

[bulleted list]

[Compare candidates, if appropriate.]

Overall, the committee was impressed with the high quality of many of the applicants for this position [assuming that is true].

Attached are the credentials of each candidate, as well as a copy of the interview questions asked by the committee of each candidate. [Give report to Personnel Librarian, who will attach credentials and interview questions before giving it to Director.]

cc: [Personnel Librarian]

1. The review committee is to consist of five librarians from the candidate’s department who have expectation of continuing employment. Supervisors and supervisees are excluded. In the event that a committee cannot be formed on these terms, the requisite number of members may be achieved by adding librarians who have comparable positions in other departments and who hold expectation of continuing employment. The meaning of "comparable" will naturally vary in a system as large and as complex as the ULS. However, the following hypothetical groupings illustrate how a Level I review committee may be formed whenever librarians outside the candidate’s department must be included. These examples are not exhaustive but merely illustrative and for guidance:

For a cataloger who works largely with materials from Eastern Europe: the Slavic bibliographer could be included on the committee along with technical services librarians;

For the Head of the Fine Arts Library: the Head of Special Collections, the Head of Archives, and the Head of the Stephen Foster Collection could have one or more seats on the committee along with relevant departmental librarians;

For a departmental librarian whose duties center primarily on public service: one or more members of the Hillman public services staff having similar responsibilities could be included on the committee; likewise, the review committee for a librarian from Hillman public services could include public services librarians from departmental libraries if necessary;

For the general foreign languages cataloger: since this position typically catalogs a large quantity of material for the Fine Arts Library, the head of that library could be included on the committee if not enough technical services librarians are available.

For a bibliographer: along with other full-time bibliographers, those responsible for collection management at relevant departmental libraries could be included on the committee.

3. The candidate should not solicit letters at all for the review. Persons to be solicited for contributions should be contacted only by the chair of the PRC as part of the Level II Review. The candidate, in early discussions with the member of the PRC assigned to facilitate the review (i.e., the "PRC review coordinator"), should suggest individuals the PRC might solicit for letters.

4. The dossier may include unsolicited letters of appreciation or commendation. In addition, this dossier may contain any other materials the candidate believes may help the Level I review committee assess his/her accomplishments and professional growth.

5. Upon receipt of the candidate’s dossier, the personnel librarian will inform all members of the Level I review committee and the PRC review coordinator that the file is ready to be examined. Members will schedule an appointment with the personnel librarian or his/her designate to read the dossier. After consulting with members of the committee, the chair will schedule a meeting for them to discuss the file. This meeting should occur no later than two weeks after the dossier has been submitted to the personnel librarian.

6. At its meeting, the Level I review committee will first determine whether it needs to solicit any additional information in order to make a well considered recommendation. If additional information is needed, the chair of the Level I review committee will solicit it. If no additional information is needed, the committee will write a report that contains a recommendation regarding the candidate’s reappointment or promotion. The chair will forward this report to the PRC review coordinator.

7. Throughout the Level I review process, the chair of the Level I review committee should communicate closely with the PRC review coordinator about the review’s progress.