28.4 Reviews of Central Administration

  1. Purpose. 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 and the Executive Vice President and Provost 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 President of the Faculty Senate and a central academic officer shall be jointly responsible for the conduct of each review. For reviews of the offices of the vice presidents and the Executive Vice President and Provost, the responsible central academic officer shall be the University President. For reviews of the Office of the President, the responsible central academic officer shall be the Executive Vice President and Provost.
  4. Scope. The reviews of central academic offices and the coordinated reviews under II-28.5 of central academic officers will focus upon operations that are clearly related to academic affairs or to the welfare of the faculty. In consultation with the administrator of the office under review, the Faculty Senate President and the responsible central academic official may include within the review other operations of that office. The review should represent a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the office on which it focuses, with recognition of the mutual dependency of programs and activities.
  5. Review Committee.
    1. Membership. The ad hoc review committee for each central administrative office and officer 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: Appointed by the Faculty Senate President and the central academic officer responsible for the review with the approval of the Senate.
      2. External reviewer: Appointed as indicated above 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: Two appointed as indicated above from among the members of this Committee, in consultation with its Chair.
      4. Three additional faculty members: Appointed as indicated above. In the selection of these members, due consideration will be given to the representation of various faculty concerns, including Faculty Senate membership, and to the needs of the review committee for particular kinds of expertise, depending upon the office to be reviewed.

        Selection of committee members will be made in accord with general University policies and practices regarding affirmative action.
    2. Budget. In establishing a review committee, the Faculty Senate President and the central academic officer responsible for the review will provide an appropriate budget to make it possible for the committee to perform its duties effectively.
  6. Self-Study. In preparation for a review, an office will prepare a self-study for the review committee. This Evaluation and Analysis Report will include, but not be limited to, the office's goals, rationale, programs, services, staffing, resources, internal evaluation processes, relations with other offices, and program strategies for improvement. The office is also encouraged to provide the review committee with the names of faculty members who through frequent interaction with the office may be able to provide the committee with helpful information for evaluating its performance. Within the general categories indicated, the following issues and questions should be addressed:
    1. Goals. What are the various purposes, aims, or goals of the office? How are these goals established and what is the faculty's role in this process? 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. Rationale. In what ways are the goals of the office compatible with the role of the University and its mission statement? How are the programs administered by the office responding to the needs of the faculty, staff, and students, the people of the State of Iowa, and the nation? How are the office's goals and purposes coordinated with those of other University offices and agencies, and with the Regents of the University? Where appropriate, what are the relationships between the office and the Governor's office, the Iowa General Assembly, and other sources of University support and funding?
    3. Programs. What are the program activities of the office? What subordinate administrative units are involved in these programs? How effective are these programs? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Exactly how is the program effectiveness of the office determined and evaluated?
    4. Services. What are the services provided by the office and its sub-units? What support and facilities are provided to the faculty? How effective are the services provided for or supervised by the office? What plans and undertakings are being considered to upgrade teaching, research, and service facilities? What priorities are attached to present services, or to the logistical support services embedded in future plans?
    5. Staffing. What is the table of staff organization for the office? What are the salaries of staff persons? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the staff? How are staff persons recruited? How is their performance evaluated? Is the present staff adequate to provide the programs and services of the office? What are future staffing plans?
    6. Resources. What is the budget for the office? What priorities govern the allocation of budget resources administered by the office? What proportion of the office budget is allocated for activities or functions directly related to faculty teaching and research? What have been the changes in budgetary support for the office in recent years? How does the office evaluate its budget success? Are administrative costs too high, or too low? What facilities does the office have at its disposal? Are the facilities adequate? If inadequate, what changes need to be made, or are being planned? In general, what new resources are needed to improve the quality of education, research, and service provided by the University?
    7. Internal Evaluation. What are the procedures used by the office for the review and evaluation of that office and its subordinate administrative units? What is the timetable for such reviews? Have there been external reviews of sub-units? Are there plans for such external reviews?
    8. Relations With Other Offices. How does the office and its sub-units interact with other University offices? Does it maintain effective communications, cooperation, and coordination with other offices as needed? Is there duplication or overlap in functions and responsibilities with other offices?
    9. Strategies for Improvement. What areas in the office's performance are most in need of improvement? How does the office intend to improve its performance? What are its development plans? What specific lines of development are being pursued? How is this being accomplished?

      These guidelines are intended to aid the office being reviewed in developing an Evaluation and Analysis Report. The report should, to the extent possible, emphasize academically related as opposed to purely housekeeping activities. Foremost in the report should be evaluation and analysis of activities directly associated with faculty teaching, research, and service.
  7. Post Self-Study Procedures.
    1. Committee Authority. Specific procedures for conducting the review of central administrative offices and officers will be worked out by each review committee commensurate with the needs for information and assessments particular to the office involved.
    2. Consultation and Access to Information. The committee, in conducting the review, will confer with all persons (including the University President) having responsibility for framing policies, directing the office, or approving procedures that affect the relationship between the office and the faculty. The committee will examine all pertinent documents, and have access to all appropriate and necessary information. Opinions concerning the performance of the academic office and officer under review shall be solicited from members of the University community by at least the following means (as well as by any others deemed by the committee to be appropriate):
      1. publication in fyi of a call for such opinions;
      2. notification of the request for such opinions through the channels of administrative organization: deans to notify DEOs, DEOs to notify departmental faculty; a parallel method is to be used to bring the review to the attention of staff;
      3. the committee will attempt to identify faculty and others who because of their interaction with the office being reviewed may have especially useful information to provide to the review process, and the committee will solicit the comments of such persons.
    3. Meetings. The committee will meet as often as necessary to prepare their reports and recommendations.
    4. Committee Report. The review committee will prepare an Office Report, which will become a public document and will not contain confidential information related to the evaluation of the performance of the administrative officer. 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, primarily to allow for an opportunity to correct assertions of fact. The committee will meet and confer with the administrator under review and with the University President (or, if the University President is under review, with the President of the Board of Regents) to explain and discuss the principal recommendations in the draft report.

      Once these processes have been completed, the final report will be forwarded to the President of the Faculty Senate and to the central academic officer responsible for the review. Copies of the final report will also be submitted to the administrator of the office under review (who may make copies for subordinates in or reporting to that office); if the President's office is under review, to the Board of Regents; and to the Chair of the Senate's Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials.

      Appropriate provision will be made to have copies of the office's Evaluation and Analysis Report and the review committee's Office Report available to all University faculty members.
    5. Follow-up. The Chair shall reconvene the review committee approximately one year after its report is submitted to determine to what extent the recommendations contained in its report have been or are being implemented. At least three weeks in advance of this meeting, through fyi, the committee will solicit from the University community, perceptions of the effectiveness with which the recommendations of the Office Report have been implemented.

      When the review was of a vice president's office, this meeting will include the President of the University, the vice president whose office had been reviewed, and the President of the Faculty Senate.

      When the review was of the President's Office, this meeting will include the President of the Board of Regents, the President of the University, and the President of the Faculty Senate.
  8. Procedural Variations. The central administrator responsible for a 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 officer being reviewed and with the Faculty Council, agree that variations from these procedures are appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.