28.4 Reviews of Central Administration

(Amended 4/6/21)
  1. Scope. The primary purposes of this academic review program are twofold: 1) to provide an occasion for central administration officers to evaluate their programs and sub-units and, in return, to explain the roles, functions, procedures, and activities of their offices and officers to the faculty; and 2) to permit a systematic faculty evaluation of these offices and officers aimed at making recommendations for improvements in administrative structure and/or performance. The review procedure is intended to improve the capacity of administrative offices and officers to support and enhance the teaching, research, and service goals of the University. Moreover, the academic review is intended to facilitate communication between administrative officials and the faculty, and to make it possible for the faculty to participate actively in the governance of the University.
  2. Timing. The Office of the President and the offices of each vice president of the University should be reviewed at least once every seven years. The University President shall consult with the Faculty Council in establishing a schedule of reviews.
  3. Responsibility. The University President and the President of the Faculty Senate shall be jointly responsible for the conduct of the reviews of the offices of the vice presidents. For review of the Office of the President, the responsible central academic officer shall be the Executive Vice President and Provost.
  4. Review preparation. The office under review is encouraged to provide the committee with the names of individuals who, through frequent contact with the office, may be able to provide the committee with relevant information for evaluating the office’s performance.
  5. Self-Study. The office will prepare a self-study that will address the following areas:
    1. Goals. What are the various goals of the office? How are these goals established? What priorities are given to the principal goals of the office? How have these priorities changed, or what plans for changes in priorities are envisioned? What are the goals of the sub-units of the office? How well do the subordinate administrative units perform?
    2. Services and Programs. What services and programs are offered by the office? How effective are these programs and services and how was that determination made? What are their strengths and weaknesses?  How do these activities support academic programs and relevant teaching or research missions?
    3. Staffing. What is the organizational structure of the office?  Is the staff appropriately compensated and trained?  Is the current staff adequate to provide the programs and services of the office? What are future staffing plans?
    4. Resources. What is the budget for the office? What priorities govern the allocation of budget resources administered by the office? What have been the changes in budgetary support for the office in recent years? Are administrative costs allocated appropriately? Are the facilities adequate? In general, what new resources are needed to effectively conduct the office’s core responsibilities?
    5. Internal and External Evaluation. What are the procedures used by the office for the review and evaluation of the office and its staff? What is the timetable for such reviews?
    6. Relationships with Other Offices. How does the office interact with other offices internal and external to the University? Does it maintain effective communications, cooperation, and coordination? Is there duplication or overlap in functions and responsibilities?
    7. Strategies for Improvement. What areas of the office’s performance are most in need of improvement? How does the office intend to improve its performance?
  6. Review Committee. The review committee for each central administrative office will be appointed by the President of the University Faculty Senate and the central academic officer responsible for the review, with the advice and consent of the Faculty Senate. Normally, the review committee will consist of seven persons as follows:
    1. Chairperson
    2. External reviewer: Appointed from among off-campus persons nominated in consultation with the central administrator whose office is to be reviewed.
    3. Two members from the Faculty Senate's Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials: Appointed in consultation with its Chair.
    4. Three additional faculty members: Appointed after due consideration given to the representation of various faculty concerns and to the needs of the review committee for particular kinds of expertise, depending upon the office to be reviewed.
  7. The Review.
    1. Procedure. The review committee will first develop specific procedures for conducting the review of central administrative offices commensurate with the need for information and assessment particular to the office involved.
    2. Responsibilities. In conducting the review, the committee will confer with all persons having responsibility for framing policies, directing the office, or approving procedures that affect the relationship between the office and the University community. The committee will examine all pertinent documents and have access to all appropriate and necessary information. Opinions concerning the performance of the academic office under review shall be solicited from members of the University community by at least the following means:
      1. notification of the request for such opinions will be made through the channels of administrative organization for faculty and staff;
      2. the committee will attempt to identify and receive input from individuals who because of their interaction with the office being reviewed may have information relevant to the review process.
    3. Committee Report. The review committee will prepare a report, which will become a public document and shall not contain confidential information related to the performance of the administrator of the office under review. The report will summarize the findings of the review committee and will include any recommendations it deems appropriate. This report will address the issues required to be discussed in the office self-study. A draft of this report will be submitted to the administrator of the office under review, to allow an opportunity to correct assertions of fact. The committee may meet and confer with the administrator of the office under review and the University President to explain and discuss the principal recommendations in the draft report.
    4. The final report will be delivered to the President of the Faculty Senate, to the central academic officer who commissioned the review, and the administrator of the office under review. If the President's office is under review, the report will be shared with the Board of Regents.
    5. Procedural Variations. The central administrator who commissioned the review and the Faculty Senate President shall consider and may jointly approve departures from these procedures in the case of particular reviews, where the responsible administrator and the Faculty Senate President, in consultation with the administrator of the office being reviewed, agree that variations from these procedures are appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.