28.5 Multi-Year Academic Review of Administrators

(Amended 2/07)

The procedures described in this section pertain to periodic reviews of central academic officers (President, Executive Vice President and Provost, vice presidents) and deans. These procedures do not pertain to the review of other academic officers reporting to central academic officers or to deans, which fall under II-28.6 below. Procedures for the review of departmental executive officers and program heads and directors are described above in II-28.3(2).

  1. Purpose. A periodic review of an academic administrator should have the following objectives:
    1. to develop a meaningful basis for the decision about whether or not to reappoint an administrator who is on a term appointment,
    2. to provide support for the continued appointment of of an administrator who is appointed at will,
    3. to enhance administrative performance of the administrator,
    4. to increase professional development for the administrator, and
    5. to improve accountability of the administrator to appropriate constituencies.
  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 academic officers shall coincide with the periodic review of the officer's office or academic unit. Ad hoc reviews of deans may be conducted outside the five-year cycle according to the provisions of II-28.5i 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 academic officers. These individuals (hereinafter "initiators") shall receive the report of the review committee and shall be responsible for determining whether or not to offer the administrator a reappointment for an additional term.
    2. The administrator shall be responsible for preparing for the initiator and the review committee a self-assessment of their performance during the period under review. The self-assessment shall take into account recommendations of prior reviews, the goals and mission, and, if applicable, the most recent strategic plan of the office or academic unit. The administrator's self-assessment shall be delivered to the initiator before the review committee is appointed.
    3. The review committee shall work with the initiator to prepare an assessment tool (e.g., web survey) for the review.
    4. The review committee shall be responsible for gathering any additional information that it thinks necessary to prepare an assessment of the administrator's performance.
  4. Review Committee Membership. For each periodic and ad hoc review, a review committee (hereinafter the "committee") shall be organized to compile information and make recommendations to aid in the overall assessment of the administrator. For reviews of central academic officers, the composition of the committee shall be as described above in II-28.4. For the review of deans, the composition of the committee will be determined by the Executive Vice President and Provost. The size of the committee may vary, but, 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 selected in consultation with Staff Council.

    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.

  5. Scope. The committee shall evaluate the administrator's performance within each of the following areas, taking into account the degree to which each area relates to the administrator's responsibilities. The committee should consult with the initiator in identifying those aspects of the following areas that are most pertinent to assessing the administrator's performance:
    1. Goal formation and attainment. Has the administrator taken a leadership role in formulating appropriate goals for the office or unit, reflecting awareness of educational and professional trends, and have they consulted with faculty of the office/unit in the process of doing so? 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 administrator encourage scholarship among the faculty, and does the administrator create an environment that fosters and encourages scholarly pursuits? Does the administrator recognize excellence in scholarship?
    3. Educational leadership. How well does the office/unit fulfill its educational mission? How effective is the administrator in stimulating discussion of new ideas about teaching and in encouraging and guiding promising developments through to implementation? Has the administrator helped to provide an environment within the office/unit and between the office/unit and other parts of the University that enhances the educational efforts of faculty and students? Does the administrator establish a congenial educational environment?
    4. Personnel management. Does the administrator show concern for and zeal in recruiting or encouraging the recruiting of the highest quality new appointments available? How well does the administrator do in choosing, evaluating, and supervising subordinates reporting directly to him or her? How well does the administrator's office perform in general?
    5. Resource management. Does the administrator seek to obtain resources that are adequate to enable the office/unit to achieve its full academic potential, and does the administrator arrange for appropriate support services for the office/unit?
    6. Relationships among constituencies. Does the administrator establish and enhance good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and those other administrators with whom the administrator regularly interacts?
    7. Planning and policy making. Does the administrator: 1) involve the faculty and other relevant constituencies in planning and policy making; 2) provide opportunities for consultation through individual and group meetings; and 3) provide 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. Human rights and diversity. Does the administrator provide effective leadership in the implementation of University policies relating to human rights and diversity, including policies on affirmative action?
    9. Promoting constructive innovation. Does the administrator encourage constructive suggestions for new goals or programs, or new ways for accomplishing ongoing goals more effectively?
    10. Scope of leadership. Has the administrator demonstrated knowledge of developments and educational leadership beyond their office/unit, including campuswide leadership and leadership at the state or national level, as appropriate to their responsibilities?
  6. Procedures.
    1. The committee shall devise mechanisms for obtaining information and evaluations from relevant faculty, staff, and students with regard to the relevant performance areas identified in section e. The chair of the committee will consult with the initiator concerning the mechanisms to be used, and the identity of any other constituencies from which information or evaluative statements should be solicited.
    2. Central Academic Officers. The review committee evaluating a central academic officer will be responsible for soliciting from all members of the University community written and/or oral evaluations of the performance of the officer and the office under review. The committee will meet as often as necessary to review, discuss, and summarize in writing the results of this evaluation process, and to prepare any recommendations they deem appropriate.
    3. Reviews of deans. In partial fulfillment of their duties under the preceding paragraph, committees reviewing deans shall collect, through a questionnaire, anonymous faculty evaluations of the administrator. The questions will be informed by the categories of administrative performance listed in section e to the extent that they are relevant. The faculty questions will conform to the requirements of paragraphs (a)–(c) below, while the form and content of the questions directed at staff and students will be within the committee's discretion.
      1. Faculty respondents will be instructed to circle their responses for a single category/number on the following scale: No Chance to Observe / 1 Strongly Disagree / 2 Disagree / 3 Agree / 4 Strongly Agree. Each question will also provide an opportunity for a qualitative narrative response.
      2. At a minimum, the faculty questionnaire shall ask respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the following five statements (the "core questions"):
        1. The dean has my trust and respect. [ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 ]
        2. The dean does a good job in discharging the teaching mission of the unit. [ No chance to observe / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 ]
        3. The dean does a good job in promoting the quantity and quality of faculty scholarship. [ No chance to observe / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 ]
        4. Overall, the dean is effective. [ No chance to observe / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 ]
        5. The dean should be re-appointed for another term. [ Yes / No ]
  7. Review Report.
    1. Preparation. The committee is responsible for assembling the information obtained from faculty, staff, and students; formulating conclusions; and making a recommendation concerning the retention of the administrator. It shall compile a report containing this information, and those conclusions and recommendations shall be confidential.
    2. Opportunity for Response. Upon completing its report, the committee shall transmit the report to the initiator who shall provide the administrator with a complete copy and permit the administrator to prepare a written response within 30 days.
    3. After receiving the administrator's response, if any, the committee will finalize the report.
    4. Informing faculty in the case of reviews of deans. In the case of such reviews, the Executive Vice President and Provost shall, after receiving the final report assembled under this section and in consultation with the review committee, transmit the recommendations and the substance of the committee's evaluation to the constituent faculty. Transmission to the faculty shall be within two months of the Executive Vice President and Provost's receipt of the committee's report, but not in the summer. In transmitting the results of the faculty questionnaire, the Executive Vice President and Provost shall report the response rate (the number and the proportion of the constituent faculty completing the questionnaire) and the aggregate responses (mean, standard deviation, median, and specific distribution) to each question posed to the faculty in the questionnaire, subject to the following limitations:
      1. If the Executive Vice President and Provost decides not to reappoint the administrator, or the administrator elects not to seek reappointment, it will be solely within the Executive Vice President and Provost's discretion which of the aggregate responses, if any, are reported to the faculty.
      2. Responses to the five core questions as defined in paragraph f(3)(b) above must be reported to the constituent faculty. The Executive Vice President and Provost has discretion to share or not share the specific responses to the other questions provided the Executive Vice President and Provost gives the faculty a summary of the strengths and weaknesses identified in the evaluation.
      3. In every case, the Executive Vice President and Provost shall consult with the review committee concerning the transmission of the substance of the review committee's report to appropriate constituencies other than faculty, such as students and staff.
    5. Informing Relevant Constituencies in the Case of Reviews of Central Academic Officers. The final report shall be distributed in the manner provided in paragraph g(4) above.
  8. Initiator's Assessment of the Administrator's Performance.
    1. Initiator Assessment. An additional step is required in the review of every administrator who is eligible for and willing to provide continued administrative service. This final step shall be an explicit written affirmation by the initiator that continued service by the administrator would be in the best interests of the University. Such an affirmation may be unconditional, or may be conditioned on changes in subsequent performance or on the receipt of a positive assessment of the administrator under a future ad hoc review. Administrators should consult with the initiator regarding guidelines for the handling of instances in which no affirmation is possible, or in which the initiator believes some significant improvement in performance is necessary, even if the administrator's performance is not so weak as to warrant a change in administrative leadership.
    2. Reporting. In addition to the communication called for by paragraph g(4) above, each constituency consulted in connection with a periodic review of an administrator shall receive appropriate and timely feedback as to the initiator's decision regarding the administrator. This shall include express notification of the faculty that the initiator has affirmed that continued service by the administrator would be in the best interests of the University. In the event that the initiator makes a determination that is at odds with the retention recommendation of the review committee based on its overall assessment of the administrator, the initiator shall discuss with the faculty the reasons for reaching a contrary determination.
  9. Ad Hoc Reviews.
    1. Constituent faculty may conduct ad hoc reviews of their administrator. Such reviews shall occur when ordered by the initiator: 1) on their own motion, 2) upon the request of the administrator, or 3) upon the request of the faculty pursuant to paragraph i(2) below.
    2. The faculty, as defined in paragraph d(1)(c) above may request an ad hoc review of the administrator by petitioning the initiator. If 50 percent or more of the faculty petition the initiator, the initiator shall order an ad hoc review. If 25 percent to 50 percent of the faculty petition the initiator, the initiator shall meet with the petitioning faculty and discuss the request. Thereafter, the initiator shall decide 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 upon by the initiator and the committee pursuant to paragraph j below.
  10. Procedural Variations. The initiator may consider and approve, for good cause shown, departures from these procedures in the case of particular reviews, if the initiator and the review committee agree that variations from these procedures are appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.