VI. Academic Personnel Review Process

The performance of all academic personnel is reviewed and evaluated regularly to guide and support faculty development and to form the basis for academic personnel decisions including salary adjustment, reappointment, promotion, and conferral of permanent tenure. Guidelines and procedures for these reviews are summarized below.

A. Review of Teaching

Teaching is the primary responsibility of The University of North Carolina and each of its constituent institutions. To ensure that this responsibility is understood and appropriately considered in faculty personnel decisions, the Board of Governors (Administrative Memorandum #338) mandates each constituent institution to have policies and procedures that require:

1. Clear and specific statements of criteria for evaluation of faculty performance at every level (institution, college, department) that are provided in writing and discussed with each probationary faculty member before initial employment and at the beginning of the first term of employment and with each candidate being reviewed for reappointment or tenure at the beginning of the year in which the review is scheduled to be made;

2. A record of these discussions to be kept in the individual’s personnel file; and

3. Review procedures for the evaluation of faculty performance to ensure that:

a. Student evaluations and formal methods of peer review are included in teaching evaluation procedures;

b. Student evaluations are conducted at regular intervals (at least one semester each year) and on an ongoing basis;

c. Peer review of faculty includes direct observation of the classroom teaching of new and non-tenured faculty and of graduate teaching assistants; and

d. Appropriate and timely feedback from evaluations of performance is provided to those persons being reviewed.

To support its mission to provide informed and effective teaching, UNC Charlotte regularly evaluates the teaching of all members of the faculty. Faculty members use the results of these ongoing evaluations to improve their courses and instruction. The results of the evaluations conducted during the year are considered during the annual review, and the evaluations conducted since a faculty member’s last comprehensive review are considered during the next comprehensive review, e.g., a review for reappointment, promotion, and/or conferral of permanent tenure.

Student Evaluations of Teaching

It is expected that students will be provided an opportunity to evaluate their courses and instructors at the end of each term. Although departments and colleges may require more frequent evaluation, the Office of the Provost expects each faculty member to be evaluated at least once per year in each of the different courses (not sections) that he or she has taught.

Peer Review of Teaching

Each department and college has established policies and procedures for the peer review of teaching in their unit. The procedures must satisfy the requirements of Administrative Memorandum #338 for peer review of the teaching of new and non-tenured faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Departments and colleges are strongly encouraged to provide for peer review of teaching for all members of the faculty.

Teaching Portfolio

A teaching portfolio, including samples of course and instructional materials, teaching evaluations and self-assessments, results of experiments with new instructional technologies, and other materials about successes, failures, and efforts to improve teaching, can be an invaluable tool for faculty development and a useful component of other review processes. The department and/or college may provide guidance for the development of the teaching portfolio and its use.

B. Annual Review

Procedures for the Annual Review of Members of the Faculty

Each department and college is expected to establish guidelines and procedures for the annual evaluation of all members of the faculty that are consistent with, and may be more extensive than, the following procedures for the annual evaluation of tenured and tenure-track members of the faculty that were established by the Faculty Council.

1. The job performance of every tenured and tenure-track faculty member will be evaluated each year. This evaluation will be undertaken by each department chair under departmental criteria and procedures. This evaluation process is a minimum requirement, it shall not supplant more extensive departmental procedures.

2. This review will always include an evaluation of teaching, scholarly work, and service. Each department will develop and apply guidelines for evaluating teaching, scholarly work, and service.

3. The annual evaluation shall be as follows:

a. For non-tenured, tenure-track faculty members, an annual evaluation conference shall be held prior to May 1 of every year. The chair shall discuss the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses in the areas of teaching, scholarly activity, and service. Prior to the conference, the chair shall prepare and forward a "draft" evaluation to each faculty member. Tenured faculty members will receive a copy of the "draft" evaluation, but will not have a conference unless a conference is requested by either the faculty member or the department chair.

b. After the conference, the department chair shall then prepare a final written evaluation of said faculty member. The final written evaluation shall have a place for the faculty member’s signature which would indicate that the evaluation has been seen and discussed. The evaluation, and one copy will then be forwarded to the faculty member. For tenured faculty members who do not have a conference, the draft copy will become the final evaluation.

c. The faculty member shall sign the final evaluation acknowledging receipt. The faculty member may state in writing reason for any disagreement that s/he may have with the final evaluation.

d. The department chair shall place the annual written evaluation along with any faculty response in the faculty member’s personnel files and shall forward the evaluation and the faculty member’s response (if any) to the dean of his/her college.

e. Unusual circumstances, such as a faculty member on leave, shall be handled by the department.

Guidelines for Conducting Effective Annual Reviews

1. Expectations for performance in each of the areas of evaluation consistent with the mission of the institution, college, department and program must be clearly written and discussed with the faculty member at the time of appointment and reviewed and updated as appropriate as part of the annual review process.

2. The role of peers in the annual review process should be clearly defined in the statement of criteria and procedures established by each department and college.

3. Information to be provided by the faculty member as part of the review process must be clearly defined.

4. The written evaluation prepared by the department chair should clearly and specifically address strengths and weaknesses in the performance of the faculty member, providing for a clean plan and timetable for improvement of any deficiencies in performance. Effective annual evaluations should eliminate "surprises" in the comprehensive reviews pertaining to reappointment, promotion, and conferral of permanent tenure.

Allocation of Merit Increases

During the spring semester, the Office of Academic Affairs sends to all College Deans instructions on how to model the awarding of merit increases to full-time faculty based on anticipated state appropriated increases. Using these instructions as a guide, each College Dean is expected to develop his or her own written guidelines for the allocation of merit increases.

C. Review for Reappointment, Promotion, and Conferral of Permanent Tenure

Policies, Regulations, and Procedures

Reviews for reappointment, promotion, and/or conferral of permanent tenure involve a peer review process conducted according to Section 6 of the "Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte" (Tenure Document), the college and departmental policies, procedures, and criteria that implement them, and the University’s Affirmative Action Plan. Each faculty member receives copies of the Tenure Document, college criteria and procedures, and departmental criteria and procedures at the time of initial appointment, and updates and revisions to them as they are made. The Provost establishes a schedule for receiving and acting on recommendations resulting from the department and college peer review processes.

Areas of Performance to be Reviewed

The areas of performance in which a faculty member is reviewed for reappointment, promotion, and conferral of permanent tenure are: 1) teaching, advising, curriculum and instructional development; 2) scholarly research, creative, and other professional activities; and 3) service to the University, the public, and the profession. As required by Section 3.1 of the Tenure Document, the assessment of the candidate’s performance in each of these areas addresses at least the following: (a) the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence; (b) potential for future contribution to UNC Charlotte; and (c) institutional needs and resources. Following are guidelines for reviewing each of the areas of performance:

1. Teaching, Advising, Curriculum and Instructional Development

Effective teaching is the primary mission of the University and, therefore, is an essential criterion for appointment or advancement. Clear documentation of effectiveness in this area is required for approval of any recommendation for reappointment, promotion, or conferral of permanent tenure.

Effective teaching encompasses a broad range of activities in addition to performance in the classroom, and the weighting of each may differ from case to case. The total performance of the candidate in this area must be evaluated according to established department and college criteria and standards, taking into consideration the types and levels of instructional activities assigned to and expected of the candidate.

Evaluation of the candidate’s teaching should consider at least the following:

a. Subject Competence. What subject areas and level of courses normally are taught by the candidate and what is their relevance to the department’s curriculum? Does the candidate have full command of the subject and an understanding of its relationship to other areas of knowledge? Is course content current and appropriate for the level of the course and curriculum?

b. Course Design. Are the courses taught by the candidate organized appropriately for their subject matter and placed within the curriculum? Are instructional strategies and course materials appropriate for the level of the course, size of the class, nature and preparation of the students, contact hours, and schedule of class meetings?

c. Course Presentation. Are course materials presented clearly and coherently? Does the candidate present the course with enthusiasm that supports the learning process? Is the course presented in a manner that stimulates the interest and involvement of students and challenges their abilities? What is the candidate’s impact on the quality of student performance?

d. Advising. What is the type and the extent of advising responsibilities of the candidate? What measures does the department use to evaluate advising effectiveness, and what are the results of these evaluations? To what extent has the candidate attempted to improve the effectiveness of advising? Have these efforts been successful?

e. Directing Student Research. What types and levels of student research have been directed by the candidate? How does the department evaluate effectiveness in guiding student research, and what are the results of these evaluations for the candidate?

f. Supervision of Graduate Teaching Assistants. What responsibilities has the candidate had, if any, for training, supervising, and evaluating graduate teaching assistants? How does the department evaluate effectiveness in fulfilling such responsibilities, and what are the results of these evaluations for the candidate?

g. Curriculum and Instructional Development. What has the candidate contributed to development of the curriculum, and how has this contribution been evaluated? How effective, innovative, and significant have the instructional strategies and materials developed and disseminated by the candidate been? What are the significance and results of curriculum and instructional development projects for which the candidate has been awarded grant funding? What are the quality and significance of other contributions to pedagogy by the candidate?

2. Scholarly Research, Creative, and Other Professional Activities

The University’s mission in the discovery, dissemination, synthesis, and application of knowledge requires that all members of the faculty are productively engaged in research, scholarship, creative, and other professional activities appropriate to their discipline or profession. Clear documentation for productivity in this area is required for approval of any recommendation for reappointment, promotion, or conferral of permanent tenure.

Engagement in research, scholarship, creative, and other professional activities takes many different forms depending upon the disciplinary or professional affiliation of the faculty member. Likewise, evidence of the productivity of this engagement varies widely from refereed publications to artistic productions to original designs to unique applications of existing knowledge to solve a problem. It is the responsibility of the department to ensure that the candidate and review participants at all levels understand what constitutes appropriate evidence and documentation of productive engagement within the discipline or profession, and the quality and significance of the work.

Evaluation of the candidate’s performance in this area should consider at least the following:

a. Publications. Publications, and the work they represent, must be evaluated and not merely enumerated. Work in progress should be assessed whenever possible and its status clearly identified, e.g., in press, accepted for publication, submitted for publication, or manuscript in preparation. A piece of work that has been disseminated through multiple outlets should be identified as such; e.g., it should be clear to the reviewers when a book chapter presents a piece of work previously published in a journal and/or a conference proceeding after originally being presented as a paper at a professional meeting. The department should assist reviewers to understand the status within the discipline or profession of the journal or type of publication, the rigor of the review process for acceptance, and any other special distinctions that should be considered. Appraisals of publications or other works in scholarly and critical literature would be useful in this process. Each author of a co-authored piece of work must be identified and the department must establish as clearly as possible the role of the candidate in the joint effort, e.g., the candidate’s role in the conception, planning and performance of the research work; the candidate’s role in the synthesis of the research results and in writing the manuscript; assessment of the importance of the candidate’s contributions relative to those of the other authors, and, when feasible, percentage of total effort on the project attributable to the candidate.

b. Presentations at Professional Meetings. Unless documentation to the contrary is provided, a paper or presentation at a professional meeting is not considered to have been critically refereed. If the contribution was peer reviewed or if it was specially invited, it is the candidate’s responsibility to provide appropriate documentation. It is the responsibility of the department to assist reviewers at all levels to understand the distinction of presenting at the meeting in question, the rigor of the review process for acceptance, and the significance to be attributed to an invitation to make a presentation.

c. Other Creative Scholarly Works. Artistic productions, designs, performances, exhibitions, and other creative works, like publications, must be evaluated and not merely enumerated. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide any published reviews of the creative work by outside critics and appropriate documentation that a performance or exhibition has been juried. It is the responsibility of the department to assist reviewers at all levels to understand the significance the discipline attributes to the type of performance or exhibition and the credibility of the reviewers. Each collaborator in a collaborative production or performance must be identified and the department must establish as clearly as possible the role of the candidate in the joint effort and provide an assessment of the importance of the contribution relative to the contributions of the other collaborators.

d. On-going Agenda for Research, Scholarly and Creative Activities. Consideration should be given to other work in progress in terms of its place in the candidate’s on-going agenda for research, scholarly and creative activities. How does this work relate to that reported above; e.g., does it replicate or extend that work, or does it represent a new line of investigation? Identify work supported by grants or contracts and indicate the funding agency and the amount and duration of funding.

3. Service to the University, the Public, and the Profession

As a public university, the mission of UNC Charlotte is to provide for the educational, economic, social, and cultural advancement of the people of North Carolina. To fulfill this mission requires participation of members of the faculty in service activities that are distinct from but related to their roles as teachers and scholars. Contributions in these areas should be carefully documented, evaluated, and considered as positive factors in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure review process.

Such service includes participation in the administration and governance of the University and activities that involve the professional expertise of members of the faculty in the community or region outside the University. It also may include contributions of faculty members to their discipline or profession through service to professional societies and associations.

Evaluation of the candidate’s performance in this area should consider at least the following:

a. Contributions to the Administration and Governance of the University. Consideration should be given to administrative responsibilities and terms of service and their effectiveness. Recognition should be given to special contributions to the governance of the institution through service on committees at department, college, and University levels. It is the responsibility of the department to document the quality and effectiveness of a candidate’s service to the institution, not merely to enumerate administrative or committee assignments.

b. Public Service. Consideration should be given to activities external to the University that are based on the professional expertise of the candidate and related to the public service objectives of the institution. Such activities might include service on boards, committees, and task forces and through consulting arrangements. Delivery of continuing education workshops and non-credit courses might be included here or in the teaching area depending upon guidelines established by the candidate’s department and college. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide accurate information about the nature and extent of these services; it is the responsibility of the department to obtain an assessment of their significance and effectiveness.

c. Service to the Profession. Faculty members often provide service to their profession through involvement in professional associations appropriate to their specialization. Contributions might take the form of editorial work or service as a referee for a professional journal; membership on committees; or holding an elective or appointed office. It is the responsibility of the candidate to identify these activities and provide appropriate documentation. It is the responsibility of the department to assess the quality and significance of the contributions and to assist reviewers at all levels to understand the status of these contributions within the professions.

The Review File

Compilation of the materials that will constitute the review file is a shared responsibility of the candidate, the Department Review Committee, the Department Chair, the College Review Committee, and the Dean. The completed file should consist of the following:

Dossier. The candidate for review has the major responsibility for compiling the dossier of his or her professional activities that will form the basis for the review. The department chair may advise and counsel, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to provide a full and accurate accounting of the activities to be evaluated in the format specified by the department or college. An up-to-date curriculum vitae must be included and the candidate is encouraged to include a teaching portfolio. The vitae must clearly identify co-authored or collaborative works, those undertaken since the last comprehensive review, and those representing a piece of work that has been disseminated through multiple outlets. As they review the candidate’s dossier, it is the responsibility of the department and college review committees, department chair, and dean to make a written request for any missing or additional information or clarification needed for the review.

Self-Assessment. The candidate is expected to prepare a self-assessment of his or her performance in each of the major areas for review. This assessment should be written in the first person and organized according to guidelines provided by the department or college.

External Reviews. For cases involving consideration for promotion or conferral of permanent tenure, letters from three or more external reviewers are required. It is the responsibility of the department chair, Department Review Committee, or dean--depending upon established procedures of the department and college--to consult with the candidate to identify a pool of qualified external reviewers to assist with assessment of the quality and significance of the scholarly activity of the candidate. External reviewers also may be asked to comment upon a candidate’s teaching or professional service where they have been able to make direct and meaningful observations of the candidate’s performance in these areas. It is the responsibility of the candidate only to assist with the identification of a pool of persons appropriately qualified to serve as reviewers. The Department Chair, Department Review Committee, or Dean must select and contact the reviewers, provide representative well-organized materials to be reviewed, give them specific guidelines for the assessment they are asked to provide, and inform them that their review will be available to the candidate. The review file should include a description of the process for selecting the external reviewers, a brief explanation of why each was selected and the nature and extent of any prior personal or professional relationship between the candidate and the reviewer, and the guidelines provided to them. Upon request, these external review letters should be made available to the candidate.

Analysis of the Candidate's Performance in Teaching. The Department Review Committee and/or Department Chair is responsible for preparing an analysis of the candidate's performance in teaching that (1) summarizes responses on student evaluations of instruction, including items assessing the overall quality of the course and compares them to the responses to these questions for all faculty in the department or other relevant faculty groups; (2) assesses course materials and other documentation that might be provided in a teaching portfolio; and (3)indicates specific strengths and weaknesses of the instructor identified by student, peer, and external evaluations and describes any actions being taken to correct deficiencies. This analysis becomes part of the review file (either as part of the DRC's report or as a separate document).

Analysis of the Quality and Significance of the Candidate’s Scholarly or Creative Activity. The Department Review Committee and/or Department Chair is responsible for examining documentation of the candidate’s scholarly research, creative, and other professional activities, including the assessments solicited from external reviewers, and preparing an analysis of their quality and significance that is added to the review file (either as part of the DRC’s report or as a separate document).

Analysis of the Quality and Significance of the Candidate’s Service Activity. It is the responsibility of the Department Review Committee and/or the Department Chair to examine documentation of the candidate’s service activities, including any assessments solicited from external reviewers, and prepare an analysis of their quality and significance to be added to the review file (either as part of the DRC’s report or as a separate document).

Report of the Department Review Committee. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses and the resulting recommendation prepared by the Department Review Committee should be addressed to the Department Chair. It should indicate the vote of the committee on the recommendation and be signed by all members to indicate that they have reviewed the report. Significant minority opinions should be identified but need not be attributed to individual members of the committee. Separate minority reports may be written and submitted as an attachment to the report of the committee.

Recommendation of the Department Chair. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses and the resulting recommendation prepared by the Department Chair should be addressed to the Dean. (If the recommendation is positive, a copy is given to the candidate when it is forwarded to the dean. If it is negative, he or she shall meet with the Faculty Member to provide the Faculty Member with a copy of the determination and its rationale, and to explain the Faculty Member’s right of rebuttal. Within ten Days after this meeting, the Faculty Member may submit to the dean and the chair his or her written rebuttal to the chair’s determination. Upon receipt of the Faculty Member’s rebuttal, or at the end of ten Days after the chair meets with the Faculty Member if the Faculty Member does not submit a rebuttal, the chair shall submit his or her determinations and rationales, together with the recommendations and rationales of the DRC, to the dean of the College).  See section 6.3.2 of the Tenure Document.

Report of the College Review Committee. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses and the resulting recommendation prepared by the College Review Committee should be addressed to the Dean. It should indicate the vote of the committee on the recommendation and be signed by all members to indicate that they have reviewed the report. Significant minority opinions should be identified but need not be attributed to individual members of the committee. Separate minority reports may be written and submitted as an attachment to the report of the committee.

Recommendation of the Dean. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses and the resulting recommendation prepared by the Dean should be addressed to the Provost. (If the recommendation is positive, a copy is given to the candidate when it is forwarded to the Provost. If the recommendation is negative, he or she shall meet with the Faculty Member to provide the Faculty Member with a copy of that determination and its rationale, and to explain the Faculty Member’s right of rebuttal. Within ten Days after this meeting, the Faculty Member may submit to the Provost and the dean his or her written rebuttal to the dean’s determination. Upon receipt of the Faculty Member’s rebuttal, or at the end of ten Days after the dean meets with the Faculty Member if the Faculty Member does not submit a rebuttal, the dean shall submit his or her determinations and rationales, together with the recommendations and rationales of the CRC and the DRC, the determinations and rationales of the department chair, and the Faculty Member’s rebuttal(s), if any, to the Provost. See section 6.3.3 of the Tenure Document.

Recommendations and Documentation Reviewed by the Provost

Positive Recommendation. The file submitted to the Provost for a positive recommendation should include only the recommendation of the dean (to which the report of the College Review Committee, the recommendation of the chair, and the report of the Department Review Committee are attached) and the required documentation listed below presented in one manila file folder labeled with the name of the candidate and the action recommended by the dean. The remainder of the review file should be kept intact in the Dean’s Office until notified otherwise by the Provost’s Office.

Supporting documentation accompanying each positive recommendation to be reviewed by the Provost must include:

1. AA Form-20: Reappointment, Promotion, and/or Conferral of Permanent Tenure;

2. The required Affirmative Action Memorandum (Form AA-27) signed by the department chair in the capacity as Unit Affirmative Action Officer;

3. An up-to-date curriculum vitae prepared by the candidate;

4.. The candidate’s self-assessment;

4. The analysis of the Department Review Committee addressing teaching, research and service;

5. The recommendation of the Department Chair addressing teaching, research and service;

6. The analysis of College Review Committee addressing teaching, research and service;

7. The recommendation of the Dean addressing teaching, research and service;

8. Any rebuttals by the faculty member if there was a negative decision by the Chair and/or Dean.

9. Copies of annual evaluation letters to the candidate for the period since the last appointment, reappointment or promotion decision for the candidate;

Negative Decisions. The full review file should be submitted to the Provost in cases where the recommendation of the Dean is negative. This should include any rebuttal letters by the faculty member to the Chair or the Dean.

D. Review for Renewal of Special Faculty Appointments

Policies, Regulations, and Procedures

Recommendations for renewal of special faculty appointments must be developed according to Section 3.4 of the Tenure Document, the college and departmental policies, procedures, and criteria that implement them, the University’s Affirmative Action Plan, and the schedule established by the Provost.

Areas of Performance to be Reviewed

The areas of performance in which a candidate is reviewed for renewal of a special faculty appointment will depend upon the responsibilities assigned to them from the following: 1) teaching, advising, curriculum and instructional development; 2) scholarly research, creative, and other professional activities; and 3) service to the University, the public, and the profession. (See Section VI. C above for details.) The assessment of the candidate’s performance in any of these areas must address at least the following: (a) the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence; (b) potential for future contribution to UNC Charlotte; and (c) institutional needs and resources.

The Review File

Compilation of the materials that will constitute the review file is a shared responsibility of the candidate, the Department Review Committee, the Department Chair, the College Review Committee, and the Dean. The completed file should consist of the materials described in Section VI. C above that pertain to the appointment being considered.

Recommendation and Documentation Reviewed by the Provost

The file submitted to the Provost recommending renewal of a special faculty appointment should include only the recommendation of the dean (accompanied by the report of the College Review Committee, the recommendation of the Department Chair, and the report of the Department Review Committee)

1. Recommendation for Special Faculty Appointment (Form AA-06);

2. The required Affirmative Action Memorandum (Form AA-27) signed by the department chair in the capacity as Unit Affirmative Action Officer;

E. Tenured Faculty Performance Review The purpose of Tenured Faculty Performance Review is to provide for the periodic and comprehensive review of the performance of all faculty members who have tenure and whose primary duties are teaching, research, and service. The goals of such a review are to promote faculty development and productivity and provide additional accountability. For more information on Tenured Faculty Performance Review, please click on the link.

F. Evaluation of Academic Administrators

The Faculty Council on February 20, 1997, established the following processes and procedures for the evaluation of academic administrators effective Fall Semester, 1998.

A regular, ongoing evaluation of the performance of academic administrators is essential to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of institutional goals. There are two elements in a successful evaluation procedure: formative and evaluative. The formative element involves a process of collecting information of current performance, analyzing this information, and providing feedback to the person being evaluated to improve current performance. The evaluative element is a much more comprehensive evaluation procedure carried out at much less frequent intervals. While it also involves the collection and analysis of information on performance, its perspective is broader than simply current performance, and its purpose is more judgmental--as to whether it is in the institution’s best interests to continue with or replace that administrator.

Guiding Principles

Following are guiding principles for the design of thorough, fair, and unbiased processes and procedures for evaluation of administrators:

• An evaluation process designed to improve the current performance of administrators requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. Broad input is required for a comprehensive review, including self-assessment, formation of representative committees, input from faculty, chairs, deans, and other administrators, and, at least for some administrators, relevant off-campus constituencies.
• The evaluation process provides sufficient flexibility to allow individual colleges or units to continue or develop their own procedures to review college or unit specific issues. However, such local procedures must be consistent with campus-wide guidelines.
• A performance review requires the development of a comprehensive job description. These job descriptions should be developed at the unit level (department for chairs, college for deans, and so on) where a clear and thorough job description does not already exist. These job descriptions must be consistent with campus-wide criteria that address expectations common to all academic administrators.
• The campus-wide criteria forming the underlying basis for all administrator job descriptions should include considerations of performance in the main areas of academic administration: leadership/vision/planning; faculty and staff allocation, recruitment, development, and retention; instructional, research and service programs; student recruitment, advising and oversight; and budget/management. In addition, the campus-wide criteria should include attention to the performance of administrators in enhancing the presence of diverse groups and creating a positive climate in their unit for the development of faculty, staff, and students.
• As far as is possible, the review process is the responsibility of the members of the academic unit of the administrator under review.
• The annual review process is designed to assist the administrator in doing his/her job better and to determine the extent of merit raises. The collective results of these annual reviews will form an important component of the comprehensive evaluation procedure.
• The review process is designed primarily to evaluate the effectiveness of the administrator and to assist the administrator in doing his/her job better. However, while the recommendations emerging from the review process are advisory in nature, careful attention by the administrator’s supervisor is given both to using these recommendations and to being seen to be using these recommendations in making decisions on the reappointment and/or professional development of the administrator.
• Deadline dates for collection of data, delivery of the data to the review committee, and designation of personnel to assemble the data are the responsibility of the official who appoints the Review Committee. Material provided to the review committee will include copies of the unit goals and planning documents.

Expectations of Good Administrators

The campus-wide guidelines, which will be part of the job descriptions, should also address appropriate and desirable "behaviors" expected of administrators. These could include (but are not limited to) the ability to listen, build consensus, establish priorities, address difficult issues, resolve conflicts, and maintain a high level of personal integrity. Also, the guidelines should pay specific attention to broad campus goals on the enhancement of diversity and the creation of a positive "climate" for faculty, staff, and students.

Annual Evaluations

1. Review Committee

Annual evaluations of Department Chairs, Assistant/Associate Deans, Deans, the University Librarian and the Provost are conducted by elected review committees. For Chairs, the appropriate review committee could be the elected Department Review Committee (DRC) or another duly elected committee. For Deans, Assistant Deans, Associate Deans and the University Librarian, the appropriate elected review committee might be the College Review Committee (CRC), a college faculty executive committee (such as the Executive Committee of the College of Engineering Faculty Organization), or some other elected committee to be determined by each college or the Library. An appropriate review committee for the Provost could be the Faculty Academic Planning and Budget Committee and/or elected members of the Faculty Executive Committee.

2. Input

The annual review process is initiated when the administrator submits to the Review Committee (hereafter "the committee") and to the faculty a brief self-assessment, goals, and summary of accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. The administrator should also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April 1.

For Chairs, Assistant and Associate Deans, Deans and the University Librarian, the committee will distribute a copy of the administrator’s self-assessment and summary of accomplishments to each voting member of the administrator’s academic unit and to staff as deemed appropriate by the next highest administrator. For the Provost, the committee distributes a copy of the Provost’s self-assessment and summary of accomplishments and goals to Deans, Chairs, and the Faculty Executive Committee.

Each year members of the faculty from the unit are invited to send comments on the administrator’s performance to the committee. While the committee may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as "What did this administrator do well this year?" "What could this administrator do to improve his/her performance?" and "What other issues do you believe deserve the administrator’s attention in the coming year?" The committee will guarantee the confidentiality of these faculty responses. The committee collects and analyzes these responses; however, in preparing its analysis of the administrator’s performance, the committee is not limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses. Regardless of the level of administrator, the committee should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and make recommendations to improve the administrator’s effectiveness or call his or her attention to issues of concern to the faculty.

Because surveying faculty can be a particularly laborious task at a busy time of year, it is recommended that reviewing committees decide when a more complete collection of faculty opinion is required to inform the annual review. In many cases, the committee members may decide that they know enough about faculty perceptions of an administrator’s performance to forego a survey in any given year. However, the faculty should be formally asked for their input at least every three years. In the case of Department Chairs, this would correspond to the normal cycle for the consideration of reappointment and the more extensive evaluation process involved at that time. In the case of Deans and the Provost, the solicitation of faculty opinion in the third annual review would mark the midpoint between appointment and the five-year comprehensive review.

3. Analysis and Reporting

The Committee is responsible for preparing an evaluation report to be submitted to the administrator and his or her supervisor. After discussing the committee’s report with the administrator, the supervising administrator prepares a summary of both the committee’s report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the administrator and the supervisor with respect to the recommendations made by the committee. This summary is disseminated to the faculty of the administrator’s unit (or, in the case of the Provost, to all faculty) at the beginning of the following academic year.

Comprehensive Evaluation

Interval for Comprehensive Review

The comprehensive review is generally conducted in conjunction with development of the reappointment decision for that administrator. In that most chairs are appointed for a three-year term, the review will be triennial. For those few chairs on a five-year term, the review will be quinquennial. If a chair does not want to seek reappointment, or if a dean or the Provost will not consider reappointment, there is no need to do the review. For assistant and associate deans, deans, the University Librarian and the Provost, the appropriate interval between reviews should not exceed five years.

Review Committees

Chairs, Assistant and Associate Deans . The dean, after consultation with the DRC and the chair, selects a 5-7 person Review Committee. This committee should be broadly representative of the interests of the department. As a minimum, one person is an elected member of the departmental review committee, one will be a current administrator from outside the department, and one member will be from outside the college in which the department is located. Optionally, one member can be from an interested group outside the university such as a departmental advisory committee or professional organization with ties to the department. The committee is established before the end of the academic year prior to the comprehensive review of the chair and elects its own chairperson.

Deans and University Librarian . The Provost, after consultation with the CRC/LRC and the Dean/University Librarian, selects up to seven persons to form a Review Committee. This committee should be broadly representative of the interests of the college/Library. As a minimum, one member of the committee will be selected from faculty elected to the college/Library review or advisory committees, one from administrators outside the college/Library such as another dean, and one from outside the university. The committee is established before the end of the academic year prior to the comprehensive review of the Dean/University Librarian.

The Provost. The Chancellor, after consultation with the Faculty Executive Committee, the deans, and the Provost, selects up to seven persons to form a Provost Review Committee. This committee should be broadly representative of the interests of all academic units. As a minimum, one member of the committee will be selected from a university division outside of Academic Affairs, and one member chosen from among the academic deans, one elected faculty member chosen from the Faculty Executive Committee or an ex-president of the faculty, and one member chosen from outside the university. The committee is established before the end of the academic year prior to the comprehensive review of the Provost.

Input

1. Before the end of the academic year prior to the review year, the Review committee (hereafter the Review Committee) meets with the administrator to jointly review the evaluation process, to decide on an appropriate timetable for the submission of a self-evaluation document from the administrator, and to establish a list of individuals (both internal and external to the unit) who have had an opportunity to work with the administrator and who are in a position to comment knowledgeably upon his/her performance.

For chairs this list of individuals to be contacted for input should include (but is not limited to): the full-time faculty (and staff) of the department; other administrators of the college; the departmental advisory (or visiting) committee (if any); alumni groups; community representatives (if appropriate); and students (individuals and groups, if any). In those units with significant numbers of part-time and non-tenure track faculty, feedback from these individuals should also be sought. For assistant and associate deans, deans, the University Librarian and the Provost the list of individuals to be contacted for input should be appropriately broader, including department chairs, other senior administrators, student and alumni leaders, and community representatives as appropriate.

2. During the fall semester of the review year the Review Committee solicits evaluations for the administrator’s performance and effectiveness from appropriate interested parties. The individuals contacted will include, but are not limited to, those persons identified in part (i) above.

3. The Review Committee, in soliciting both written and oral input from these individuals, will assure confidentiality so that individual comments are not identified in the review.

4. The Review Committee will use any other appropriate information in making its evaluation of the administrator’s performance. At a minimum, this information will include the administrator’s job description, the administrator’s self-evaluation, and the results of the annual evaluations of the administrator (if any).

5. Deadline dates for collection of data, delivery of the data to the review committee, and designation of personnel to assemble the data are the responsibility of the official who appoints the Review Committee.

Analysis and Reporting

1. The task of the Review Committee is to address the effectiveness and the methods of the administrator in performing his/her job. Effectiveness is to be principally judged on the basis of the administrator’s job description, and the progress made by the administrator’s unit toward meeting articulated academic and institutional goals.

2. The Review Committee submits its evaluation report to both the administrator and the administrator’s supervisor prior to the end of the fall semester of the review year.

3. The administrator under review shall have the opportunity to correct any errors of fact or omission in this report by corresponding directly with his/her supervisor.

4. After discussing the committee’s report with the administrator, the supervising administrator prepares a summary of both the committee’s report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the administrator and the supervisor with respect to the recommendations by the committee. This summary is disseminated to the faculty of the administrator’s unit (in the case of the Provost, to all faculty) on or before March 1 of the review year.