28.3(2) Multi-Year Reviews of Departmental Executive Officers (DEOs) and Program Directors

(2/07; 10/09; 4/6/21)
  1. Purpose. These reviews serve two primary purposes: 1) they provide an occasion for deans to evaluate personnel in charge of programs and departments; and 2) they permit a systematic faculty evaluation of department and program leadership. These reviews may occur within the context of a departmental/program review, but it is not required.
  2. Timing. The timing of reviews of DEOs and program directors shall be established by collegiate rule but shall occur no later than the fifth year following initial appointment. Following the initial reappointment, subsequent reviews of DEOs and program directors shall occur at least every five years and always prior to the reappointment decision.
  3. Responsibility. The collegiate dean, in consultation with the faculty and subject to approval by the Provost, has the responsibility to establish publicly available written policies and procedures for reviews of DEOs and program directors. The collegiate dean further has the responsibility to conduct these reviews in accordance with such policies and procedures.
  4. Scope. Reviews should cover the following areas, recognizing that circumstances of the unit led by the DEO or program director may alter the areas in which a DEO or program director is evaluated:
    1. Strategic plan. The DEO or program director should take a leadership role in formulating a strategic plan for the unit, reflecting awareness of educational and professional trends, and should consult with members of the unit in the process of doing so. Plans should be agreed upon with the reviewing authority at the beginning of the review period and integrated into the collegiate strategic plan. To what degree does the DEO or program director meet the strategic plan objectives?
    2. Professional development. How effective is the DEO or program director in stimulating programs aimed at professional development of faculty and staff? Does the DEO or program director regularly and effectively stimulate discussion while encouraging and guiding promising developments through to implementation?
    3. Quality of personnel policies. Is the DEO or program director actively participating in the recruitment of high-quality individuals?  Are they concerned with enhancing faculty effectiveness in accordance with a clear principle of merit? Does the DEO or program director consistently and effectively apply principles and policies of equal employment opportunity to recruitment? Are they advancing and evaluating faculty and staff?  Do they promote and support professional development to enhance the performance of the department or program?
    4. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The DEO or program director is responsible for promoting excellence in education by increasing the diversity, equity, and inclusion of faculty, staff, and students. This individual is also accountable for making progress in diversity, equity, and inclusion in the areas of recruitment, mission(s), retention, and climate. How effective is the DEO or program director with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion in their department or program?
    5. Education. How effective is the DEO or program director in stimulating discussion of new ideas and encouraging and guiding promising instructional developments through to implementation? Have they 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 DEO or program director establish a professional and civil educational environment?
    6. Scholarship. Does the DEO or program director encourage and recognize scholarship among the faculty, and create an environment that fosters and encourages scholarly pursuits?
    7. Resource management. DEOs and program directors should actively advocate for resources adequate to enable the unit to achieve its full academic potential and strategic plan. Are resources sufficient and allocated appropriately?
    8. Civility and professionalism. Does the DEO or program director establish and enhance good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and others with whom they regularly interact?
    9. Consultative governance. Is the DEO or program director providing opportunities for consultation through individual and group meetings?  Do they provide appropriate information in a timely, full, and open manner to facilitate effective participation in planning and policy making?
    10. Reappointment. The review should invite faculty members to recommend for or against reappointment to the central administrative officer or dean position.
  5. Review report. The report is considered a confidential personnel record. Some aspects of the review must be disclosed, however. The DEO or program director being reviewed shall receive the results of the review and shall have an opportunity to respond to them in writing. In addition, the faculty should be informed in writing by the dean of the reappointment decision.