The
University Senate of Michigan Technological University
REVIEW AND REAPPOINTMENT OF DEANS OF
COLLEGES
(Proposal 39-04)
(Proposal 13-13)
(Proposal 4-17)
Senate Procedures 502.1.1
1. Introduction
The
Senate developed several shared governance proposals in 1992, one of which was
proposal 7-92 for the review and reappointment of deans of colleges. The
procedure in proposal 7-92 was used only once for the dean of the college of
engineering. Subsequently, at the behest of the university administration,
proposal 39-04 was passed that charged each college to develop its own
procedure for the review of their dean. No such procedure was developed for the
college of engineering (COE), but the college of Science and Arts (CSA)
developed a procedure in 1995 that has been used several times, including 2011.
This proposal describes a procedure that is an adaptation of one used in CSA.
It addresses some of the shortcomings identified by the review committee in
2011. The procedure will be applicable to both COE and CSA.
The
review of the dean of CSA in 2011 revealed the following shortcomings.
1. Results of the
evaluations were not seen by the constituents of the college who participated
in the survey. The review results of department chairs, school deans, and upper
administration are made available to the survey participants in some form.
Hence, the review of college deans is an exception to the norm of dissemination
of review results. The committee also felt that survey participation will fall
in subsequent reviews unless the results are shared with the constituents.
2. The provost gives
the dean an appointment letter that describes the charge that the dean is
expected to meet during her/his four year term. A review procedure that is
independent of the charge is less objective and is not fair to the dean, or to
the review committee designing the survey instrument, or to the constituents
who must respond to a survey and often do not know the dean well.
3. The current CSA
procedure pre-supposes that the survey will be conducted using paper copies,
while the trend is to conduct survey electronically.
This
proposal addresses the above shortcomings in the procedure used for the review
of the dean of CSA. The review and reappointment committee will be referred to
as the committee in this document.
The
committee shall be appointed by the provost but shall include a representative
from each of the College’s departments, a representative from the staff, a representative
from the Graduate Student Government, a representative from the Undergraduate
Student Government, and a representative from among the College’s department
chairs. In addition, the committee shall include a representative from the
University Senate who shall be from outside the unit whose dean is being
evaluated.
The representatives will be elected by the
various constituents and the committee will be established in the Fall semester
of the review year.
At
least one week prior to calling the first meeting of the committee, the provost
will inform the dean to be reviewed that the committee has been formed, give
him/her the copy of the review procedure, and the date of the initial meeting
of the committee. The provost will ask
the dean to write her/his self-evaluation report as per description in 4. Dean Self-Evaluation. The report will be
collected by the committee chair in the first week from the date of the
committee’s initial meeting with the provost.
The
dean should prepare a written document evaluating his/her performance as dean
addressing each of the charges given at appointment and subsequent developments
(such as budget changes, institutional goal shifts, etc.)
The
self-evaluation should include, but need not be limited to: achievement of unit
goals, budget management, growth and quality of programs (teaching, research,
and service), management philosophy, growth of endowments and tax-deductible
donations, and future needs and directions. The dean is encouraged to provide
comparative quantitative data in this report where relevant.
The
dean should assemble for the committee recent College-wide documents, such as
long-range plans, vision and mission statements, and annual reports.
After
receiving these materials, the committee shall decide if additional materials
are needed (for example, comparative data from Institutional Analysis) and seek
to procure such materials.
The
provost shall call the first meeting of the committee and review its charge,
the procedures it should operate under, and the deadlines it should meet. A
suggested timetable for the committee’s activities is provided as Appendix A. A
copy of the charges given to the dean in the letter of
appointment will be given to the committee members.
At
its first meeting, the committee shall elect its chair, establish (if possible)
a convenient meeting time, and establish the following subcommittees:
Chair Review
Faculty Review
Staff Review
Student Review
Each
subcommittee shall consist of at least two members; the chair Review
subcommittee shall include the department chair representative; the Faculty
Review committee shall be composed of faculty representatives; the Staff Review
committee shall include the staff representative; and the Student Review
subcommittee shall consist of both student representatives (undergraduate and
graduate student groups) and at least one faculty representative.
The
duties of the chair Review Faculty Review, Staff Review, and Student Review
subcommittees are outlined in 6. Review and Modification of Evaluation Procedures and 7. Chair, Faculty,
Staff, and Student Evaluation below.
As
soon as possible after the committee’s first meeting, the chair of the
committee shall meet with the dean seeking reappointment to introduce him or
herself and to ensure that the dean’s self-evaluation report will be ready by
the due date.
6. Review and Modification of
Evaluation Procedures
The
Chair Review, Faculty Review, and Staff Review subcommittees shall meet to
review the procedures and survey questionnaires for their respective
constituencies. Copies of questionnaires from previous reviews will be
maintained on the Senate website and will provide preliminary information for
the committee. A common standard format will be established by the committee
for: the questionnaire; processing of results; and writing of the result
summary by each subcommittee.
Each
subcommittee shall discuss what adaptations need to be made to the
questionnaires to the particulars of their own unit.
Each
sub-committee should examine their survey instrument to determine if the
constituents can provide additional information or perspective on the charge
given to the dean.
The
Student Review subcommittee shall prepare recommendations for the committee on
the extent of student input and means of securing it.
The students may choose not to conduct a
survey but have the dean meet their executive body and provide a written
document for inclusion in the final report.
The
procedures and survey questionnaires proposed by each of the subcommittees
shall be presented to the committee for formal approval.
Input
on the survey questionnaires should be solicited from the constituency of each
subcommittee. The dean should also be given a chance to comment on the
questionnaire and an opportunity to add up to two questions in each
questionnaire.
7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student
Evaluation
The
survey will be conducted electronically and limited to the college constituency
represented by the review committee. Logistical support for conducting the
survey will be provided by the Senate Administrative Policy Committee (conducts
annual electronic survey for review of the central administration) at the
request of the committee if needed. All reasonable efforts must be made to
ensure anonymity of the survey respondents, and this must be described on the
entry page of the survey. The survey must direct each respondent to the
appropriate questionnaire developed by the subcommittees.
Links
to the following documents should be provided on the entry page to the survey.
1. The relevant
portion of the appointment letter describing the charge to the dean.
2. The self-evaluation
report by the dean.
3. Any document
provided by the dean to the review committee.
4. Any document
obtained by the review committee that has a bearing on the survey.
The
subcommittees shall be responsible for tabulating and interpreting data from
the survey, both quantitative and qualitative, and preparing summaries for the
committee as a whole.
Each
subcommittee shall present the results of its findings (quantitative data and
summaries) to the committee for discussion.
The
committee will write a draft report addressing each of the charges given to the dean
in the appointment letter but is free to elaborate on any aspect of the review.
Comments obtained from the survey will be collated ensuring anonymity of the
respondent but will be verbatim. The committee is given limited authority to
delete unprofessional language. This limited authority can be exercised only by
the consent of the majority of the committee members.
The
dean will be given the draft report one week prior to scheduling an interview
by the committee. After the interview, the dean has one week to submit a
written response that will be included in the final report by the committee.
If
the provost informs the committee that the dean has decided not to seek
reappointment then all review material will be destroyed and the committee
disbanded. The provost will inform the college constituents about the dean’s
decision at the time of dissolution of the committee.
After
the interview, the committee shall schedule a meeting to reach a recommendation
regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of the dean and to finalize the
report. The committee shall attempt to reach a consensus on a recommendation
without taking a formal vote. If this is not possible and the committee takes a
formal vote, that vote shall be reported in the final report.
If
there is near consensus on the decision (defined as 3/4 or more voting for a
recommendation), the committee shall prepare a single report which summarizes
the factors behind its decision.
The report will also contain summaries of
questionnaires, statistical report of questionnaires, and the collated verbatim
comments from the survey.
If
more than 1/4 of the members of the committee disagree with the majority
decision, the minority shall be permitted to prepare a minority report, which
shall accompany the majority report.
10. Dissemination of
Final Report
The
procedure used for dissemination of the department chair review report that is
described in Senate procedure 506.1.1 Section 7 will be used for
making the final report of dean review available to the constituents of the
college. Faculty members serving on the committee will be responsible for
coordinating the dissemination of the report within their department and
ensuring that there is no breach of confidentiality during dissemination. Staff
and students will be informed of the availability of the report within the
constraints of the department procedure. The availability of the report will be
for one week, after which all copies made for the purpose of dissemination will
be destroyed.
The
committee will write a separate memo to the provost detailing changes and
improvements to the procedure. The memo and the final report will be sent to
the provost. The committee and the provost will meet for the final time for
discussion of the report and the changes to the procedure in the future.
A
copy of the memo detailing recommended changes and copies of the questionnaire
used will be sent to the Senate President. The copies of the questionnaire will
be posted on the Senate website for future use.
The
provost will inform the college constituents the outcome of the review process.
Appendix A: Time Line of Review Process
The senate recommends the following timeline for evaluation. The provost should be sure the committee is
appointed no later than the fall semester, so that the evaluation can begin at
the start of the spring semester. In the
time line below the schedule refers to time when the university is in session.
Fall The provost starts
the selection of the members of the committee in the Fall term of the year of
the dean’s review for reappointment. See 2. Committee Composition.
Week 1 The provost informs the
dean of the formation of the committee and the date for the first committee
meeting and asks the dean to start preparing a self-evaluation report. See
Sections 3. Informing the Dean and 4. Dean Self-Evaluation.
Week 2 The provost calls the first meeting of the
committee, defines the charge, and gives all relevant documents. See 5. Initial Meeting.
The committee elects chair,
establishes subcommittees, and if possible decide on a meeting time.
The committee chair meets with
the dean.
The dean’s
self-evaluation report is collected by committee chair by end of the week.
Copies of the document are sent to all committee members.
Week 3 The committee meets to
review the procedure and discuss the dean’s self-evaluation report and other
documents and establish if any other documents are needed. See 6. Review and Modification of Evaluation Procedures
Week 4 Subcommittees meet to
develop questionnaire for the constituencies. See 6. Review and Modification of Evaluation Procedures
Week 5 The committee meets and
discusses the questionnaire developed by the subcommittees. See 6. Review and Modification of Evaluation Procedures.
Week 6 Input from subcommittee
constituency and the dean sought. See 6. Review and Modification of Evaluation Procedures
Week 7 The committee finalizes
plans for conducting of the survey. See 7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student Evaluation
Week 8 The survey is conducted.
See 7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student Evaluation
Week 9 Subcommittees write
summary reports on their questionnaire. See 7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student Evaluation
Week 10 The committee discusses
reports from subcommittees and starts the draft report. See 7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student Evaluation
Week 11 The committee finalizes the
draft report and sends it to dean. See 7. Chair, Faculty, Staff, and Student Evaluation
Week 12 The committee meets with
the dean. See 8. Interview with the Dean
Week 13 The committee receives the
dean’s written response. It meets to discuss the recommendation and finalize
the report. See 9. Recommendation
Week
14 The report is disseminated in each
department as per Senate Procedure 506.1.1 Section 7. The report is also
sent to the provost with a memo for changes in the procedure. See Sections
10. Dissemination of Final Report and 11. Conclusion .
Week 15 Copies of report used for
dissemination in the department are destroyed. The committee has a final
meeting with the provost. See 11. Conclusion
Appendix B: General Procedures for Sub-committees
1.
Each
subcommittee develops procedures and a questionnaire appropriate for enabling
its constituency to provide an evaluation of the Dean seeking reappointment.
2.
Subcommittee
decides on constituency to receive form (Do all faculty, including part-time,
receive the evaluation form, or only tenured and tenure-track? Do part-time and/or temporary staff receive
the evaluation form?)
3.
Each
Subcommittee submits its proposed procedures and questionnaire to Committee for
approval.
4.
Each
Subcommittee distributes its questionnaire to its constituency. Anonymity should be preserved.
5.
Each
Subcommittee as a body reviews the evaluations and prepares a summary for the
Committee. Review of comments and
preparation of summaries should not be left to a single individual.
6.
Each
Subcommittee shall shred all printed evaluations at the conclusion of the
Committee’s work.
Appendix C: Chairs Evaluation of Dean
Sample Questions:
1.
Has
the Dean clearly expressed a public vision for the College, identified
achievable goals leading toward that vision, and defined quantifiable metrics
to judge progress towards these goals?
2.
Has
the Dean provided leadership in pursuing the vision?
3.
In
general, has the Dean effectively managed the College so that necessary
functions (such as budgeting) have been performed efficiently and
expeditiously?
4.
Does
the Dean do a good job in balancing the diverse needs of the wide range of
disciplines found in the College?
5.
Does
the Dean allocate resources to units under him/her in a fair, reasonable, and
open manner?
6.
Has
the Dean been a strong advocate for the College on the university level?
7.
Does
the Dean convey a positive image of the College?
8.
Has
the Dean given sufficient attention to recruitment of faculty in
under-represented groups?
9.
Has
the Dean given sufficient attention to increasing diversity among students?
10. Has the Dean successfully built
relationships with key external constituents?
11. Does the Dean effectively and accurately
communicate the position of the higher administration to the departments?
12. Does the Dean effectively and accurately
communicate the position of the departments to the higher administration?
13. Are there any institutional constrains
that have limited the Dean’s effectiveness?
If so, please indicate and explain how they have limited his/her
effectiveness?
14. What, in your opinion, have been the
Dean’s greatest strengths as an administrator?
15. In what areas does this Dean need to
improve his/her performance?
Appendix D: Faculty Evaluation of Dean
Sample questions:
Your faculty
appointment characteristics:
A= Tenured/Tenure Track
B= Non-tenure track (lecturer, sr. lecturer,
principal lecturer, prof of practice)
C=Temporary appointment (instructor)
D=Research faculty
Years of
service: A=10 or greater B=5 to 9 C=1-4 D=less than 1
1.
The
Dean has a coherent vision for the College, which is communicated to the
faculty.
2.
The
Dean is an effective advocate for the College to the higher administration?
3.
The
actions of the Dean enhance the image of the College inside and outside of the
university.
4.
The
Dean works to create an environment which fosters faculty development.
5.
The
Dean encourages and rewards effective teaching throughout the College.
6.
The
Dean encourages and rewards productive research throughout the College.
7.
The
Dean encourages and rewards service?
8.
The
Dean encourages open discussion and debate regarding College objectives and
goals.
9.
The
Dean ensures that resources are distributed equitably within the College and
that finances are prudently managed.
10. The Dean is able to manage the demands
of diverse departments.
11. The College has made steady progress
toward the achievement of its academic and research goals.
12. The Dean is an effective in external
development and alumni relations.
13. The Dean is both accessible to and
accountable to the members of the College faculty.
14. Overall, the Dean has earned the
confidence of the College faculty.
15. In what areas does the Dean need to
improve? What actions should be taken to
pursue these improvements?
16. What are the greatest strengths of this
Dean?
Appendix E: Staff Evaluation of Dean
Sample Questions:
Please
answer Yes or No to the following.
Provide details and examples if appropriate:
1.
The
Dean has a coherent vision for the College.
2.
The
Dean has communicated the goals of the College.
3.
The
Dean allows opportunities for discussion and input into goals, ideas,
decisions, etc.
4.
The
Dean instills high college morale.
5.
The
Dean fosters a spirit of cooperation and teamwork.
6.
The
Dean maintains an environment free of discrimination and harassment.
7.
The
Dean projects a positive image of the unit throughout the university community
through his/her actions.
8.
The
Dean is accessible to the members of the College staff.
9.
Overall,
the Dean has the confidence of the College staff?
10. What are the strengths of the Dean?
11. How can the Dean improve his/her
performance?
12. Additional comment:
Proposal 39-04:
Adopted by Senate:
21 April 2004
Approved by President: 27 April 2004
Proposal 13-13:
Introduced to Senate: 27 March 2013
Approved by Senate:
10 April 2013
Approved by Administration: 19 April 2013
Proposal 4-17:
Introduced to Senate: 19 October 2016
Senate Approved to Split Proposal 4-17 in two:
02 November 2016
Senate Amended Proposal (in blue): 16 November 2016
Senate Approved Proposal: 18 January
2017
Administration Approved Proposal: 30
January 2017