Administrator Review Guidelines

Provost's Administrator Review Guidelines

1. Administrators at the level of Dean and Department Head or Chair will undergo a mandatory review every three to five years as detailed in these guidelines. This review is intended to provide the supervising administrator with an objective and constructive assessment of the unit leader’s strengths and weaknesses leading to improved performance. All administrators who wish to be considered for reappointment must have a completed review process before they can be considered. No administrator, regardless of the length of term of his/her appointment, can be reappointed without a formal review. The administrator’s direct supervisor is responsible for scheduling the review and beginning the process by calling for the formation of the review committee.

2. Guidelines for forming review committees.

   1. Department Chair/Head Reviews

      1. For departmental reviews, between three to six representative faculty (targeting roughly twenty percent representation) will be elected by vote of both tenured and non-tenured full-time faculty in the unit.

      2. In departments/units with five or more non-tenure-track full-time faculty, one from this rank will be elected by vote of the non-tenure-track faculty.

      3. Administrative professionals and staff from the unit will each elect a representative to the committee. If only one from each rank is a member of the unit, then they will serve on the committee.

      4. SGA and Graduate Student Association will each choose a representative as appropriate.

      5. University Senate leadership will choose a member from outside the unit to serve on the committee.

      6. The Provost will appoint all committee chairs from outside the units.

      7. A representative of the Provost’s Office should attend the committee’s first meeting to issue the committee’s charge, review the process, and discuss confidentiality.

   2. Dean Reviews

      1. Each department will elect a faculty representative. If units exist in lieu of departments then three non-administrator faculty members will be elected by faculty vote.

      2. Administrative professionals and staff from the unit will each elect a representative to the committee. If only one from each rank is a member of the unit, then they will serve on the committee.

      3. SGA and Graduate Student Association will each choose a representative as appropriate.

      4. University Senate leadership will choose a member from outside the unit to serve on the committee.

      5. Department heads/chairs will choose one from among their rank to serve on the committee

      6. The Provost will appoint all committee chairs from outside the units.

      7. A representative of the Provost’s Office should attend the committee’s first meeting to issue the committee’s charge, review the process, and discuss confidentiality.

3. The administrator being reviewed prepares a brief self-evaluation assessment (approximately two pages) to include pre-established goals, his/her accomplishments toward achieving them, and proposed plans and future goals for the unit.

4. The review committee will seek input from faculty, staff, and students along with peer administrators and outside constituents such as alumni and funding agencies, if appropriate. This input will be solicited primarily through approved surveys managed by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, and the committee may also choose to solicit letters and conduct interviews and focus groups as part of this review. The Provost’s Office will determine the survey process used to evaluate the deans, including questions on the dean’s survey that address the assistant/associate deans.

5. Based on information gathered during the process, the review committee will produce a final report, following the review format approved by the Provost’s Office, documenting the administrator’s strengths and areas needing development, as well as, recommendations for improvement. The initial draft of this report will be collaboratively written by at least two committee members with the final report endorsed by the entire committee with any dissenting views included in the final report.

6. Guidelines for Disseminating Reports and Survey Data

   1. The final report and any supporting documentation, including survey results (both numerical results and open-ended comments) will be sent to the administrator’s direct supervisor and the Provost for evaluation and discussion with the reviewed administrator.

   2. The final report and the numerical results of surveys will be shared with the administrator being reviewed.

   3. Individual comments from the completed surveys will remain confidential and not be shared with the administrator under review.

   4. Deans undergoing administrator review must write a response letter explaining how they will address the concerns raised from the review to their direct supervisor within five weekdays of receipt of the report but should not contact the committee.

   5. The supervisor and the review committee chair will meet with the faculty, staff and A&P personnel, without the administrator present, for debriefing of the review process and the recommendations for improvement.

   6. The supervisor will draft a summary letter to the administrator outlining steps that will be taken to address weaknesses and recommendations presented in review committee’s final report. The administrator will be allowed five working days from receipt of the supervisor’s summary letter to write an optional letter of response that will be included with the summary letter.

   7. Summary letters to deans and any letters of response will be copied to the President and the Provost, letters to heads and chairs and any letters of response will be copied to the Provost.