Policy Manual

The procedures described in this section pertain to periodic reviews of central administrative officers (President, Executive Vice President and Provost, vice presidents) and deans.

1. Purpose. A periodic review of a central administrative officer or dean may have the following objectives:
   1. to develop a meaningful basis for the decision about whether to continue or to renew the appointment of a central administrative officer or dean; and/or
   2. to enhance performance of the central administrative officer or dean.
2. Timing. Periodic reviews of collegiate deans shall occur every five years without regard to the timing of the review of the college. Reviews of central administrative officers shall coincide with the periodic review of the office or academic unit. Ad hoc reviews of deans may be conducted outside the five-year cycle according to the provisions below.
3. Responsibilities:
   1. The individuals with responsibility for initiating periodic reviews of academic offices and academic units, as specified above in II-28.2 Collegiate Review and II-28.4 Reviews of Central Administration, also have the responsibility for initiating periodic reviews of the respective central administrative officers and deans. These individuals shall receive the report of the review committee and shall be responsible for determining whether to continue or renew the appointment of the central administrative officer or dean.
   2. The central administrative officer or dean being reviewed shall be responsible for preparing a self-assessment for the period under review. The self-assessment may consider recommendations of prior reviews, the goals and mission, and, if applicable, the most recent strategic plan of the office or academic unit.
4. Review Committee Membership. For each review, a committee shall be appointed to make recommendations to the central administrator who commissioned the review. For the purposes of this subsection, the definition of "faculty members" is equivalent to the definition of faculty members who may vote in collegiate elections of representatives to the Faculty Council and Faculty Senate.
   1. For reviews of central administrative officers, the composition of the committee shall be as described above in II-28.4.
   2. For the review of deans, the composition of the committee will be determined by the Executive Vice President and Provost. At a minimum, each committee shall include:
      1. One faculty member from outside the college.
      2. Two faculty members from the college, selected in consultation with the faculty of the college.
      3. One staff member from the college.
5. Scope. The administrator who commissioned the review shall identify for the review committee those aspects of the following areas that are most relevant to the central administrative officer’s or dean’s performance assessment:
   1. Strategic Plan. Has the central administrative officer or dean taken a leadership role in formulating appropriate goals for the office or unit? If goals were agreed upon at the beginning of the period under review, to what degree have those goals been attained?
   2. Scholarship. Does the central administrative officer or dean encourage and recognize scholarship among the faculty, and create an environment that fosters and encourages scholarly pursuits?
   3. Leadership. Has the central administrative officer or dean demonstrated knowledge of developments and leadership beyond their unit, including campuswide leadership and leadership at the state or national level, as appropriate to their responsibilities? How effective is the central administrative officer or dean in stimulating discussion of new ideas and encouraging and guiding promising developments through to implementation? Has the central administrative officer or dean provided an environment within the unit, and between the unit and other parts of the University, that enhances the educational efforts of faculty and students? Does the central administrative officer or dean establish a professional and civil educational environment?
   4. Personnel policies. Does the central administrative officer or dean demonstrate: active participation in recruitment; concern for enhancing faculty and staff effectiveness in accordance with the clear principle of merit; apply principles and policies of equal employment opportunity to the recruitment; and ensure the advancement and evaluation of faculty and staff?
   5. Resource management. Central administrative officers and deans should actively advocate for resources adequate to enable the unit to achieve its full academic potential and strategic plan. Does the central administrative officer or dean allocate resources appropriately?
   6. Relationships among constituencies. Does the central administrative officer or dean establish and enhance good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and others with whom they regularly interact?
   7. Policy making. Does the central administrative officer or dean provide appropriate information to faculty and other relevant constituencies in a timely and open manner to facilitate effective participation in policy making and provide opportunities for consultation through individual and group meetings?
   8. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Does the central administrative officer or dean demonstrate responsibility for promoting excellence by increasing the diversity, equity, and inclusion of faculty, staff, and students in all areas including recruitment, mission(s), retention and climate?
6. Procedures. The review committee shall obtain information and evaluations from faculty, staff, and students regarding the relevant performance areas identified. In partial fulfillment of their duties under this paragraph, committees reviewing deans shall collect, through a survey, anonymous faculty evaluations of the dean’s performance. The questions shall be informed by the categories of administrative performance listed in paragraph f to the extent that they are relevant. The review committee evaluating a central administrative officer will be responsible for soliciting similar input from all relevant constituencies of the University community.
7. Review Report.
   1. Preparation. The review committee is responsible for:  assembling the information obtained from faculty, staff, and students; formulating conclusions; making recommendations related to professional development; and making a recommendation concerning the retention of the central administrative officer or dean. It shall compile a report containing this information, and those conclusions and recommendations shall be confidential. The review committee shall transmit the report to the administrator who commissioned the review within 15 business days of completing the interviews.
   2. Opportunity for response. The administrator who commissioned the report will provide it to the central administrative officer or dean under review, who may then submit a written response within 15 business days.
   3. Final report. The report is considered a confidential personnel record. Some aspects of the review may be disclosed as expressly set forth below in II-28.5i(2).
8. Assessment of the Central Administrative Officer’s or Dean’s Performance.
   1. The administrator who commissioned the report will assess the results of the review and make a determination regarding the continued service by the central administrative officer or dean under review.
   2. Reporting. Each constituency consulted in connection with the periodic review of a central administrative officer or dean may receive feedback as to the initiator's decision regarding continuation of service or reappointment of the individual under review.  If the administrator who commissioned the review makes a determination that is at odds with the retention recommendation of the review committee based on its overall assessment of the central administrative officer or dean, the initiator shall discuss with the constituency consulted in connection with the review the reasons for reaching a contrary determination and why it is in the best interests of the University.
9. Informing Relevant Constituencies. The Executive Vice President and Provost shall share the committee’s recommendations, a summary of the evaluation, and the determination regarding continued service with the appropriate constituents. The Provost also will address material departures from the retention recommendations of the review committee, if any. This shall occur within one month of the Executive Vice President and Provost's receipt of the committee's report and central administrative officer’s or dean’s response.
10.  Ad Hoc Reviews.
    1. The supervisor may initiate an ad hoc review of a central administrative officer or dean at any time.
    2. The constituent faculty may request an ad hoc review of a central administrative officer or dean by petitioning the supervisor. If 50 percent or more of the constituent faculty petition the supervisor, the supervisor shall order an ad hoc review. If 25 percent to 50 percent of the constituent faculty petition the supervisor, the supervisor shall meet with the petitioning faculty to discuss the request and shall determine whether to order an ad hoc review.
    3. Ad hoc reviews will be conducted in the same manner as periodic reviews, subject to modifications jointly agreed on by the supervisor and the review committee.