Annual Report
BLFC Salary Equity Review Committee, 1999/2000
Indiana University Libraries
Date: April 21, 2000

Contents

• Charges
• Recommendation from Annual Review 1998/1999
• Recommendations
• Appendix 1 (with revisions by SERC Committee members 1999/2000)

Charges to the Committee:

To monitor the accuracy and scope of the salary database of all Bloomington library faculty members, including extra-system library faculty. This database is maintained by the Libraries Human Resources Office.

To conduct a salary equity review every third year, identifying salary inequities and making recommendations for salary equity adjustments. The committee's report to the BLFC should exclude any confidential salary equity information, which should be submitted only to the Libraries Human Resources Officer and the Dean of University Libraries.

To identify values and ensure that mechanisms are in place for reporting librarians' accomplishments.

Recommendation from Annual Review 1998/1999:

Do a "test" equity review on a small number of librarian salaries, using some kind of weighted values which are based on specified criteria such as analysis of job content, degrees obtained, merit increase history and which factor in qualitative issues.

Based on the charges, this year's committee spent the year testing the equity review process on 20% of the Bloomington librarians population (15 out of 75 librarians). The test was based on criteria and weights used in two of the previous equity reviews (Appendix 1). The tested population included BLF members excluding the dean, associate deans and extra system librarians. A random sample of 15 librarians ( 5 out of 19 full rank librarians, 7 out of 43 associate librarians, and 3 out of 13 assistant librarians) was selected from a list provided by the Libraries Human Resources Office.

Information regarding job description, years in rank, years of experience outside IU, degrees obtained, numbers supervised, merit history and salary floors was collected from the Libraries Human Resources Office. A basic formula (see Appendix 1) developed by the Salary Equity Review Committee in 1994/1995 was applied to each case. Committee members made a concerted effort to reach a consensus in understanding and applying the criteria and weights.

The review produced the following results:

• Three instances of salaries ranging from -8.7% to -2.5% below predicted salaries
• Six instances of salaries ranging from -2.0% to + 2.0% of predicted salaries
• Six instances of salaries ranging from +2.5% to +27.3% above predicted salaries

Based on further analysis of the results, the Committee identified several possible factors contributing to equity cases:

• The sum of the cost of living adjustment plus the flat percentage increase for a satisfactory performance rating was less than the percentage applied to the salary floors
• Compensating for any increase to the cost of living adjustment while maintaining a meaningful merit award amount would further compromise salary increases for librarians receiving satisfactory ratings
• Rapid promotion to a higher rank may contribute to holding salaries near the bottom of rank
• Campus library heads, department heads and section heads may be above the predicted level due to their administrative responsibilities
• Peer review process may contribute to inequity

Committee members felt that the formula was a reasonable tool in assessing the equity matter and has worked out well.

Recommendations:

• The Committee recommends the continued use of the established formula for continuity. Considering other changing factors, the formula may need to be reviewed periodically
• The Committee recommends that the sum of the cost of living adjustment plus the flat percentage increase for a satisfactory performance rating is equal or greater than the percentage applied to the salary floors
• In future reviews, the Committee should consider factoring in unsatisfactory salary ratings as well as factoring out merit increases when comparing the predicted salaries if similar salary increase allocations are followed
• The Committee recommends that additional structures need to be developed to assure equity among campus library heads, department heads and section heads
• Two previous committees have used 2% deviation as a cut-off for identifying equity cases but we recommend considering a 3% deviation as a more practical alternative
• Librarians should include a current vita with their annual review and job description
• Libraries Human Resources Office should track all ratings to provide data for future equity reviews
• The Salary Policy in the BLF Constitution and By-Laws should be reviewed and updated to reflect current practices
• The Committee recommends that the extra systems librarians be surveyed to see if they want to be included as a courtesy in next year's review

An Example:

Full Librarian with 13 points (total weight) for job responsibilities
Expected salary = (weighting factor x floor salary for each rank) + salary for each rank
Expected salary = (.13 x 47,470)+47,470=52,834
Difference in percentage = Expected salary - (Current salary - Merit amount)/expected salary


Floor Salary for each rank (1999/2000)

Affiliate Librarian: $28,760
Assistant Librarian: $31,862
Associate Librarian: $38,839
Full Librarian: $47,470
*Inequity cases
Name (not real name)

Appendix 1

Revised by the SERC Committee Members, 1999/2000 (see the text with **)

Relationships and Communications

External Contact

Substantial external contact (more than two of the following)** with other IU campus libraries, the university community, other libraries and information agencies, the general public, and business contacts. (2)

Average external contact with other IU campus libraries, the university community, other libraries and information agencies, the general public, and business contacts. (.25)

Internal Contact

Substantial internal contact with the IU Bloomington libraries and the Bloomington extra-system libraries. (1.5)

Average internal contact with the IU Bloomington libraries and the Bloomington extra-system libraries. (.25)

Supervision

• Supervision of 1 FTE librarian or PA staff. (1.25)
• Supervision of 2-5 FTE librarians or PA staff. (2)
• Supervision of 6 or more FTE librarians or PA staff. (2.5)
• Supervision of 1-5 FTE support staff. (1.25)
• Supervision of 6 or more FTE support staff. (1.5)
• Supervision of 1-5 FTE student staff. (.5)
• Supervision of 6 or more FTE student staff. (1)

Independence

• Latitude to carry out duties within established policies and procedures while major problems are directed to a supervisor. (.5) (Committee recommends this value be eliminated)**
• Latitude to set work goals, choose methods of accomplishment, and determine appropriate time frames on the basis of varied assignments given or approved. (1)
• Latitude to determine priorities and to allocate resources to achieve objectives within departmental policy. (1.5)
• Latitude to determine and evaluate departmental policy and to determine priorities and allocate resources within library policy. (2.5)
• Latitude to determine, evaluate and implement policy and to determine priorities and allocate resources to achieve objectives within a major segment of the University library system. (3)

Responsibility

• Substantial breadth of responsibility. (2.25)
• Average breadth of responsibility. (.25)
• Substantial depth of responsibility. (2.5)
• Average depth o f responsibility. (.25)

[Breadth of responsibility refers to the number of people, other than those one supervised, who are affected by one's work or by one's decisions. The people affected may be either library staff or library patrons]**

[Depth of responsibility refers to the seriousness of the impact of one's work or one's decisions on the people affected by them.]**

Respectfully submitted,
Salary Equity Review Committee, 1999-2000

• Taemin Park, Chair
• Roger Beckman, BLFC Liaison
• Jo Burgess,
• Yolanda Cooper-Birdine, Ex-Officio
• Barbara Henn
• Kathy McCarnes, Ex-Officio
• Gwen Pershing
• Lois Sewell