|
Annual Report 2002/2003MembersAnne Mitchell, Linda Depken, Loretta Barker, Rachel Robbins (chair), Sarah Jones and Tanya Lipscomb (ex-officio) Membership in the Coming YearAnne Mitchell and Rachel Robbins will be going off the committee so a paraprofessional and a professional position will need to be filled. A call for nominations will go out in mid-August. In addition, Tanya Lipscomb has departed the Libraries so Loretta has been assigned to fill in as ex-officio for Administration until Tanya’s position can be filled. MeetingsHeld once every other month in the months that the library staff meeting was not held -- usually on Mondays at 3:30. The Year in SummationFor the Committee, it was pretty much business as usual. We invited and screened recommendations and forwarded our approvals to Tom Wilding for review. Committee members then followed up by working with awardees to have their picture taken if they so desired. Most did not opt to have their picture taken. IssuesAn issue that was carried over from last year, looks like it will get carried over to next year. That is the idea that librarians who go through a change in status be recognized as part of the Spring Awards ceremony. This change would have to be coordinated between the Entertainment and the Career Status Committees since the Entertainment Committee puts on the Spring reception and the Career Status Committee (with Tom Wilding) determines changes in the career ladder for applicants. The Career Status Committee did talk about this idea and supported it. However, since no one went through the career ladder process this year, no action was taken. Granted this issue is outside the ERC’s purview, but an idea that we do not wish to be forgotten. During the spring the Committee began discussing the whole awards process and whether it was doing what it should for this institution. This included discussion of the issue raised last year in the electronic staff suggestion box – whether the STAR Award was fair to LAIs and LAIIs. The Committee met with Julie Alexander and we discussed concerns and how best to start reviewing the awards process. It was decided that a staff survey would be a good place to start. However, that initiative was tabled when the awards process came up as part of library planning for 2003/2004. The Committee decided to wait and see if an action plan would be passed on to them or if some other venue would be asked to look into the whole awards process. One of the biggest areas of contention for the Committee was the mechanism for following through on the statements in the Committee guidelines that indicate that all Applause Award recipients and all Bright Idea recipients "shall be considered for the STAR Award". Were we just to go on what documentation we had from the initial nomination or seek additional supporting documentation? And if additional documentation was sought do we do it for all Bright Idea and Applause Award recipients or just those that we felt were the strongest candidates for the STAR Award? The experiences of members who had served on the ERC in the past were vastly different in handling these questions, so consistency had obviously been a problem. Most, but not all of the Committee, felt that we should expect Bright Idea and Applause Award recipients to get a separate nomination for the STAR Award to be placed in that pool. This should be addressed as part of whatever review process the awards system under goes. Awards Reviewed and IssuedApplause(1 nomination turned down & 1 redirected) Bright IdeaPeter Zhang Outstanding Student(5 nominated) STAR(6 nominated) TEAMS
|
|
||||||
| |||||||