Service Quality
Improvement Council
Staffing Issues Group
Minutes, May 18, 1999
Present: Marybeth Bean, Maureen Heher, Emily Horning (recording), Sandy Peterson
(Chair), Diane Turner
Minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
Sandy announced that the SQI Council has asked the Staffing Issues Group to
draft guidelines dealing with abusive language and physically threatening
behavior of patrons, using Scott Bennett's note to YULIB-L as a start. Sandy
mentioned that portions of the Yale Student Handbook deal with precisely
these topics; the handbook also outlines steps for disciplinary action.
The group will examine the handbook, and Sandy will forward copies of
Scott's note to the group.
Discussion continued on the topic of Staff Recognition Programs. At
our last meeting, we recommended that awards be created for students,
"rookie" (6 months - 2 years) employees, and regular (> 2 years)
employees. Awards for rookies and regulars could go to C&T or M&P
employees, to individuals or to teams of employees.
The frequency of these awards was discussed. Danuta's e-mail
message, recommending that awards not be given too frequently, so as
not to lessen their perceived worth, was mentioned. The group decided
that an annual ceremony would be reasonable, although "on-the-spot" awards
are a possibility. Also, there needn't be only one award given per year;
if several individuals or groups were identified, all could be
considered. The group recommended that all citations be included in
staff personnel files, and that SQI consider naming the award for a
past employee.
Discussion turned next to separate awards for service to "internal"
and "external" customers. Would distinctions confuse staff? Would
they create negative competition? I.e., Would larger departments, whose
volume is greater, have an unfair advantage? The group decided that
these awards should be given for service "above and beyond the call of duty",
and should not be considered a thank-you for normal workflow.
The group examined policies from other institutions for award
criteria. Policies from Notre Dame and Vanderbilt were particularly
enlightening, though some questions remain: Should there be an application
process? Should decisions be made by the University Librarian, or by
a jury? If a jury, how would such a jury be assembled?
We returned to the number of awards that could be given. If more than
one person per category was identified (highly likely), should there
be an upper limit? Up to 5 for staff, 2 for rookies? For student
awards, should we distinguish between awards for longevity and awards
for service? Marybeth Bean suggested hosting a "Library Study Break" for
all student employees during Reading Week, with supervisors distributing
invitations.
Criteria for "on-the-spot" awards were examined. How would we
encourage staff, supervisors, and readers to nominate candidates? How
would we announce the winners? YULIB-L and the library newsletter were
suggested as possibilities. The group recommended investigating similar
programs at other ARL libraries.
The details of the selection process, and the question of who decides who
gets what award, will be considered at a future meeting.
Our next meeting will be Tuesday, June 8th.
Recorded by Emily
Horning, emily.horning@yale.edu
