Librarian Merit Rankings for 2002

Rank	Peer Review Committee Rating	Supervisor's Rating	Final Rating	Agreed (w/PRC)	Agreed (w/Supv.)	Comments
Assistant Librarians	7	7	7	6	7
I	0	0	0	0	0
II	1	1	1	1	1
III	4	5	5	4	5
IV	2	1	1	1	1
Associate Librarians	41	41	41	32	30
I	0	1	1	0	1
II	14	10	18	12	11
III	24	25	20	18	16
IV	3	5	2	2	2
Full Librarians	16	16	16	11	13
I	0	0	0	0	0
II	1	1	3	1	1
III	12	13	13	10	12
IV	3	2	0	0	0
Totals	64	64	64	49	50
I	0	1	1	0	1
II	16	12	22	14	13
III	40	43	38	32	33
IV	8	8	3	3	3

To: Peer Review Committee (Sylvia Turchyn, Frank Quinn, Elizabeth Hanson, Joel Silver)

From: Suzanne Thorin, Ruth Lilly Dean of University Libraries, Associate Vice President for Digital Library Development

Date: June 11, 2003

Re: 2002 Rating/Report to the Peer Review Committee

I commend the Committee for their hard work during these deliberations. It is a difficult task when making recommendations for such extraordinary contributions made by the Libraries academic staff. As the attachments to the memo will show [see table above], 65 librarians were reviewed by the Committee and 65 by their supervisors and me in consultation with the Libraries Human Resources Officer, and the Associate Dean. The Committee's recommendations for 49 IUB librarians have been adopted. Different ratings were assigned for 15 librarians.

One extra-system librarian was reviewed by the Committee and recommendations were forwarded to their department head.

In one case, the difference in the rating was an upgrade by me based on my personal input as the supervisor.

Of the 14 other ratings that differed from the Peer Reveiw Committee, I followed the supervisor or Associate Dean's recommendations regarding job performance, rather than the Committee's assessment, because this input provided additional significant information which made a difference in the rating assigned.

The Peer Review Committee rated eight librarians at the level IV. In the end I agreed that three merited this level.

As we have done in previous years, we will meet to discuss some of the ratings determined by the Committee, the changes made to the assigned ratings, and any concerns the Committee wishes to raise.

Again thank you for the work and the efficient manner in which you completed your task.

URL:http://www.indiana.edu/~libblfc/
Comments: edowell@indiana.edu
Copyright 2000, The Trustees of Indiana University