1 / 13

MAUT Librarians Section Professional Issues Committee

MAUT Librarians Section Professional Issues Committee. The Merit Review Process in the McGill Libraries Robert Clarke Chair, 2002 & 2003 Merit Review Committee. Merit Review Annual Timetable.

lacy
Download Presentation

MAUT Librarians Section Professional Issues Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAUT Librarians SectionProfessional Issues Committee The Merit Review Process in the McGill Libraries Robert Clarke Chair, 2002 & 2003 Merit Review Committee

  2. Merit Review Annual Timetable • March-April: Director of Libraries appoints the Chair of Merit Review Committee (for 2 years) from among the members of the SMG • April-May: Librarians complete their activity reports and submit them to their supervisors • May-June: Supervisors prepare evaluations, meet with librarians to discuss performance and to set goals and objectives for the next year • June: completed activity reports submitted to the APO Libraries

  3. Merit Review Annual Timetable (cont’d) • June-July: Director of Libraries invites MAUT Librarians Section to appoint an observer to the Committee • July-August: Merit Review Committee members individually review the activity reports and make a preliminary assessment • August-September: Merit Review Committee convenes to review the reports • Mid-September: Recommendations of the Merit Review Committee are submitted to the Director of Libraries

  4. Members of the 2003Merit Review Committee • All Administrative Librarians (who are all members of the SMG) • The Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections (who is a member of the SMG) • The Manager, Personnel and Administration (as a resource person for the Committee) • An observer from the MAUT Librarians Section • The Trenholme Director of Libraries (ex officio)

  5. How the Merit Review Committee conducts its work • On his/her own time, each member reviews a selection of the reports and makes a preliminary evaluation of a) contributions and b) work performance • With the MAUT observer present, the entire Committee reviews each report, discusses the proposed weighting assigned to contributions, and discusses any anomalies. • With the MAUT observer present, the entire Committee reviews each report, discusses the proposed weighting assigned to work performance, and discusses any anomalies.

  6. How the Merit Review Committee conducts its work (cont’d) • If and when necessary, a supervisor may be asked to meet with the Committee to discuss his/her evaluation of a particular librarian. • The Committee conducts a final, report-by-report review of the files and confirms its recommendations. • The Chair of the Committee reviews the recommendations for accuracy, and submits the Committee’s final recommendations to the Director of Libraries.

  7. Some Important Points to Note • Only the Contributions portion of the SMG members’ dossiers are evaluated by the Committee. • For purposes of the evaluation of work performance, all librarians are considered to start with satisfactory work performance. • The MAUT observer is there to ensure fairness in the process, and does not partake in the actual evaluation of dossiers. • Sabbicants’ work performance is automatically evaluated as satisfactory.

  8. What’s Evaluated:Contributions to the University and to the Profession (20%)(examples) • Scholarly output (books, articles, book reviews, conference presentations, etc.) • Teaching activities (that not related to work duties) • Consultancies and other advisory activities • … and many other things

  9. What’s Evaluated:Work Performance (80%)(examples) • Performance (poor, satisfactory or superior) according to the supervisor's evaluation • Involvement with system-wide or university-wide activities, e.g. projects, task forces • Significant extra duties during the reporting year, e.g. moving a library, acting headship, launching a new computer system. • Work-related collaborations with other departments or units in the university or in other institutions.

  10. The Librarian’s Annual Report of Activities Tips: • Information you forget to include in your report won’t be evaluated. BE THOROUGH. • In the narrative section, focus on YOUR achievements during the reporting period, not your department’s or library’s. • Give complete details for all teaching and guest lectures, e.g. course name, credit value, duration of the teaching, and name(s) of any fellow instructor(s).

  11. The Librarian’s Annual Report of Activities (cont’d) 4. Attach copies of all publications and conference proceedings that are listed in your report. 5. DO NOT attach thank-you letters relating to activities in your report. 6. If you list membership in a committee or task force (McGill or non-McGill) please state whether the committee met or conducted any activities during the reporting year.

  12. The Librarian’s Annual Report of Activities (cont’d) 7. Remember, the reporting year is June to May. Avoid listing activities that took place outside of the reporting period. 8. Publications: only publications that appeared in the previous calendar year should be reported, e.g. 2002 publications should have been listed in your 2002-03 activity report. 9. Memberships in associations are not considered by the Committee; only active positions within those associations.

  13. Preparing yourAnnual Report of Activities

More Related