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

(2/07; 10/09)
  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 or prior to reappointment (if this occurs earlier) of the DEO or program director. Subsequent reviews of the DEOs and program directors shall also occur at least every five years but always prior to reappointment.
  3. Responsibility. The faculty of each college has the responsibility to establish policies and procedures for reviews of DEOs and program directors. As a consequence, this policy should be written and publicly available. Furthermore, it should be approved by the Executive Vice President and Provost. The collegiate dean has the responsibility to conduct these reviews in accord with such policies and procedures.
  4. Scope. Ordinarily, reviews should cover the following areas, recognizing that circumstances of the unit lead by the DEO or program director may alter the areas in which a DEO or program director is evaluated. This and other information shall at a minimum be based on information derived from systematic assessment of the views of the faculty members of the relevant department or program.
    1. Goal formation and attainment. The DEO or program director should take a leadership role in formulating appropriate goals for the unit, reflecting awareness of educational and professional trends, and should consult with members of the unit in the process of doing so. Goals should be agreed upon with the reviewing authority at the beginning of the review period. An assessment should be made regarding the degree to which goals have been attained.
    2. Educational leadership. Effectiveness in stimulating programs aimed at professional development of faculty and staff, plus effectiveness in stimulating discussion of new ideas about teaching and programs and in encouraging and guiding promising developments through to implementation — encouragement of scholarly activity.
    3. Quality of personnel policies. Concern for and zeal in recruiting or encouraging the recruiting of the highest quality new appointments available; concern for enhancing faculty in accordance with the clear principle of merit; performance in applying principles and policies of equal employment opportunity to the recruiting, advancement and evaluation of faculty and staff; performance in evaluating associate and assistant administrators to promote professional development and enhance the performance of the administrator's office.
    4. Establishment of a congenial educational environment. Has the administrator helped to provide an environment within his or her unit and between the unit and other parts of the University that forwards the educational efforts of faculty and students?
    5. Resource acquisition. DEOs and program directors who have budgetary authority for academic units should seek to obtain resources adequate to enable the unit to achieve its full academic potential. DEOs and program directors should arrange for appropriate support services for the unit.
    6. Relationships among constituencies. Establishing and enhancing good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and those other administrators with whom the DEO or program director being reviewed regularly interacts.
    7. Involvement of faculty and other relevant constituencies in planning and policy making. Providing opportunities for consultation through individual and group meetings; providing information (with the exception of information to which access is restricted by other policies) in a timely, full, and open manner to facilitate effective participation in planning and policy-making.
    8. Diversity. Promoting excellence in education by increasing the diversity of faculty, staff, and students is a central goal and a core value of The University of Iowa. The DEO or program director is accountable for making progress in diversity, including the areas of recruitment, mission(s), and climate.
    9. Reappointment. Faculty members should have the opportunity to recommend to the dean whether or not the DEO or program director should be reappointed as DEO or program director.
  5. Review report. Recognizing that there is wide variation in the methods used by colleges for these reviews, the minimum requirements for reporting the results of the review of the DEO or program director are:
    1. The DEO or program director should have an opportunity to respond to the review in writing.
    2. The faculty should be informed in writing by the dean of the results of the review.