The
University Senate of Michigan Technological University
EVALUATION
PROCEDURES FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS AND SCHOOL DEANS
(Proposal 16-92)
(Proposal
6-11)
Senate Procedures 506.1.1
Background:
The Senate has the
responsibility and authority to establish procedures for the selections of
Deans, School Deans and Department Chairs (Senate
Constitution Article III.F.1.a.10)
and the responsibility to make recommendations for their evaluation (Senate
Constitution Article III.F.4.b.9).
Following the adoption of the departmental governance policies defined by Senate
Proposal 16-92, university units
established revised procedures for searching for new Chairs and evaluating the
performance of those serving as Chairs.
Over the last twenty years,
the University administration has come to believe that these procedures should
be defined by University-wide policy and not on a unit-by-unit basis.
Among the rationales for this change is the fact that Chairs and School Deans
are administrative officers and thus serve at the discretion of the president,
but units have rights of appeal as defined in the grievance policy outlined
by Senate
Proposal 23-00. As an extension
of this fact, units have the power of review and comment during searching,
hiring, and evaluating/reviewing.
Academic units and members
of the administrative team have disagreed whether an individual unit can direct
a search to be for internal or external candidates. This proposal
mandates an open search for a School Dean and grants the authority to resolve this
issue to the appropriate College Dean or the Provost in consultation with the department for a
Chair search.
This proposal contains
language duplicated from current, approved charter procedures for both School
Deans (i.e., Forestry) and Department Chairs (i.e., Chemical
Engineering). Editorial and other changes have been made to the material which afford the following differences:
1. All School Dean
searches will be open in scope.
2. The proposal
contains an annual mechanism by which the Provost, School Dean (for
Associate Deans), or a majority of the School’s faculty and staff can initiate
an interim review.
3. Units
still have to evaluate their chairs after three years of service, but a
mechanism for surveys after the second and fifth years of service so as to
provide useful feedback for improvement is included. Most charters
previously allowed for this at the end of every year but only if a Senator
requested one or if a majority of the unit faculty assessed by vote requested
one.
4 School
Deans and Chairs currently serving terms during the term when this proposal is
approved will enter the evaluation cycle according to the years passed since
their most recent appointment or reappointment.
Proposal Text:
This policy applies to
Departmental Chairs and Deans of Schools only. Search provisions for
Deans of Colleges and the Dean of the Graduate School
are governed by Proposal
19-07 (Senate Procedures 802.1.1) and Proposal 17-07 (Senate Procedures
803.1.1) respectively.
B. Evaluation of the School Dean and Associate School Dean
1. Every third year, the School Dean shall be evaluated to
determine whether he/she will be re-appointed. This evaluation will
be conducted by the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee using
University-wide guidelines and concentrating on performance in the following
areas: 1) establishing objectives consistent with the School's mission and, 2)
meeting those stated objectives. Membership of the committee may be
augmented by faculty and staff from other colleges, schools, or universities as
is deemed necessary by the faculty and staff of the School in consultation with
the Provost. Students as well as members of the School’s Advisory
Board may also serve on the committee as is appropriate. The
evaluation process will include a written self evaluation by the School Dean,
survey of faculty and staff opinions of the School Dean’s performance of
his/her responsibilities, a summary of the faculty and staff comments and
opinions compiled by the Committee, and the School Dean’s response to their
report. The committee will hold a secret ballot vote of the School’s
members (as defined by the charter) to provide advice regarding the School
Dean’s reappointment. The Committee’s report, School Dean’s
response, and the results of the vote will be disseminated to all School
faculty and staff, and submitted to the Provost. A copy of the
evaluation shall be placed in the permanent records of the
School. The Provost should meet with the faculty and staff of the
School to discuss the evaluation results before action is taken on reappointment. The
final decision to reappoint or replace the School Dean is made by the
University upper administration as specified by MTU policies.
2. Every third year, the Associate School Dean position if it
exists in the school will also be evaluated to determine whether he/she will be
re-appointed. This evaluation will also be conducted by the School’s
Promotion and Tenure Committee using the guidelines adopted for University-wide
usage and concentrating on performance in the duties listed for the position in
the school’s charter. Membership of the Committee may be augmented
by faculty and staff from other colleges or departments as is deemed necessary
by the faculty and staff of the School in consultation with the School Dean.
Students may also serve on the committee as is appropriate to the evaluation
criteria. The evaluation process will include a written self
evaluation by the Associate School Dean, survey of faculty and staff opinions
of the Associate School Dean’s performance of his-her duties, a summary of the faculty
and staff comments and opinions compiled by the Committee, and the Associate
School Dean’s response to their report. A secret ballot of the
School tenure-track and research faculty will be conducted to solicit input on
whether the Associate School Dean should or should not be
re-appointed. The Committee’s report, Associate School Dean’s
response, and the results of the vote will be disseminated to all School
faculty and staff, and submitted to the School Dean. A copy of the evaluation
shall be placed in the permanent records of the School. The School
Dean will meet with the faculty and staff of the School to discuss the
evaluation results before action is taken on reappointment. Final
responsibility to retain or replace the Associate School Dean rests with the
School Dean and the School Dean’s decision to reappoint the Associate School
Dean must be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the tenure-track and
research faculty using a secret ballot.
3. Interim Survey of the School Dean and Associate
School Dean
Once per interim year (i.e., years one or two), a survey of the
School Dean’s performance may also be done if any one of the
Provost, the School Dean, or a majority of
the faculty and staff of the School (as defined in the School’s charter)
request(s) a special survey. The School Dean leadership skills shall be
surveyed using questions deemed appropriate by an interim evaluation committee
(formed as described below). These surveys are meant to provide the
School Dean with an opportunity to respond to any problems, real or imagined,
early on in their tenure and to demonstrate the ability to lead in a
constructive and inclusive manner. Interim surveys will be conducted by a
committee comprised of three persons, one faculty member appointed by the
Provost, one elected by the faculty, and one from the Professional staff.
The purpose of this committee will be to prepare an appropriate
questionnaire (the Provost can suggest questions), distribute this to
interested parties, and compile the results which will be presented to the
School Dean for his/her use and to the Provost. One departmental meeting for
all involved parties shall be held at the end to discuss the results whereupon
all data should be destroyed with one record being kept in the Provost's
office.
4. Closure
The department’s Senator or
his/her designee must inform the Senate that the School’s evaluation process
has been concluded and offer any recommendations for changes in the evaluation
process the Evaluation Committee deems necessary. This can be done
during a Senate meeting or by email to the Senate office before the date of the
last Senate meeting for the year in question.
B. Evaluation and
Reappointment of Chairs
1. The Department Charter shall specify
who is eligible to participate in the evaluation process as well as the
structure and selection of the Evaluation Committee for their Chair. The
Evaluation Committee will not include the current chair or any faculty member
that has a conflict of interest regarding the current chair’s evaluation.
Written guidelines on these types of conflict-of-interest situations may not be
in the MTU faculty handbook or in the Board of Control Bylaws and Policies.
2. Frequency of Evaluation: The term of appointment for the Chair is
three years and the Chair’s performance will be assessed by means of a survey (conducted in the second year of the first term
only) and reviews.
The survey need to be conducted so as to provide timely feedback to the
Chair so they can adjust policy or practice before their in-depth review for reappointment.
Reappointment
reviews take place in the third year of the first term and then in the second
year of the consecutive appointments to allow for a search in the third year if
the evaluation indicates waning support. A search will normally be conducted if
the support is less than 50% of the voting constituency.
The evaluation process also may be initiated by the Dean or by the faculty (by a simple majority vote) at any time earlier, but not more than once a year.
At any point in the evaluation process, the Chair may decide not to seek reappointment. In this case, the evaluation process ends and all written and electronically stored material related to the evaluation process will be destroyed.
3. Self Evaluation by the Department
Chair: During a
mandatory reappointment review, the Chair will
prepare a written report that is distributed to all faculty and staff of the
department. This report should include but need not be limited to:
A.
Achievement of the department goals for the period of evaluation.
B.
Budget and its management.
C.
Growth and quality of academic programs.
D.
Future needs and directions of the department/school.
E.
The charge given to the Chair or any goal of the department that the Chair
thinks is controversial in the department and the effort the Chair has made to
address the controversy.
The
distribution of this report will be followed by a meeting of all members of the
department. The purpose of this meeting will be for the Chair to answer
questions and provide clarification about the report.
4. Evaluation Procedures:
Department Evaluation Committee will create a survey questionnaire with which
their members can evaluate the Chair’s performance. The Department’s Evaluation Committee will
determine the format and method of the questionnaire. Each College Dean’s
office will keep sample questionnaires on file to help Department Committees
prepare their own survey instrument. The Senate office also has a listing of suggested
questions.
Once prepared, questionnaires will be sent to all faculty and staff of
the department. Evaluation committees
should use the Senate’s standard balloting procedures (given below). The
faculty and staff will be given one week to return the completed form to the
Evaluation Committee.
5. Processing of Questionnaire Results:
The Evaluation Committee will tabulate and analyze the results. The committee
will be sensitive to the interests and concerns of various members of the unit
while preparing, conducting, and tabulating the results of the survey
(including tenured/tenure-track faculty, lecturers, staff, “professors of
practice,” research engineer/scientists, administrators) within the department.
The committee will synthesize comments from open-ended questions and prepare
summary statements of the major accomplishments and problem areas of the Chair
over the period of evaluation. The
committee will comment on progress in previously identified problem areas.
Results of the previous evaluation may be obtained from the College Dean.
6. Chair's Response: The Evaluation
Committee will give the Chair a copy of the survey results, which may include
tabulated results, syntheses of the open-ended questions, and summary
statements. The Chair will be asked if
he/she would like to respond to the report before it is presented to members of
the department. If the Chair decides not
to seek reappointment, then the process is terminated, and the members of the
department will be informed of the Chair's decision. All material, including
digital media, related to the evaluation process will be destroyed.
7. Dissemination of Questionnaire
Results: The evaluation committee will prepare a report, including the
tabulated results, syntheses of open-ended questions, any summary statements
prepared by the committee, and (if provided) the response of the Chair. The
Evaluation Committee will arrange a closed departmental meeting at which they
will circulate this report to all faculty and staff in the department. Copies of the documents will not be taken
outside the meeting room. All but two
copies of the documents will be destroyed after the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is the
dissemination of evaluation material only, and not for additional discussion of
the Chair's performance.
One
copy of the report will be kept in the office of the College Dean. Any
member of the department may see the evaluation material at any time during the
reappointment process at the office of the College Dean. The second copy will
be used in the file described in item 9.
8. Balloting: A vote on the
question below will be conducted using the Senate standard balloting procedures
(see section C. below). The ballot will be sent only to the members of the senate
constituency in the department and tabulated by the Evaluating Committee.
(Name
of Chair) should be reappointed or continue as the Chair of the Department
Yes
_____________________ No ___________________ No
Opinion_________________
All
the faculty and staff of the department will be informed of the ballot results
by the Evaluation Committee.
9. Implementation of Evaluation Results:
A file containing the self evaluation of the Chair, the original completed
questionnaires, the tabulated results of the questionnaire, the synthesis of
open-ended questions, the summary statements of the committee, the response of
the Chair, and the results of the ballot will be forwarded to the College Dean,
the Provost, and the President who will make the final decision on
reappointment.
When
the administration decides contrary to a 2/3 majority vote, the College Dean or
the Provost will provide written explanation of the reasons for that decision
to the members of the department.
10. Report by College Dean: When a
Chair is reappointed or denied reappointment the direct supervisor of the Chair
must prepare a written statement on the strengths and weaknesses of the Chair,
including but not limited to the following areas:
a.
Guidance and management of the quality and growth of the academic programs
within the department.
b.
Guidance and support of research activities within the department.
c.
Practice of sound financial management within the department.
d.
Management and guidance of personnel within the department.
e.
Definition of goals within the department and progress of the department toward
these established goals.
The
report is distributed to all members of the department and a meeting with the
College Dean is held to answer questions and to provide clarifications.
11. Storage of Reports: The
self-evaluation report of the Chair, the report of the College Dean, the
tabulated results, the synthesis of open-ended questions, the summary
statements of the committee, and the ballot results will be kept in the office
of the College Dean, and will be supplied to the next Evaluation Committee. The
above documents including digital information (emails, downloaded files, etc.)
will be destroyed once the Chair leaves the position.
12. Closure: The department’s
Senator or his/her designee must inform the Senate that the evaluation process
has been concluded and offer any recommendations for changes in the evaluation
process the Evaluation Committee deems necessary. This can be done during a Senate meeting or
by email to the Senate office before the date of the last Senate meeting for
the year in question.
Secret
ballots will be conducted using a double envelope process. The marked ballot will be placed into a small
sealed envelope. This envelope must be
sealed into a larger envelope, which must be signed by the voter across the
flap. The Committee (Promotion and
Tenure in the case of a School or the Search or Evaluation Committee in the
case of a Chair) must be present when the votes are separated from the large
outer envelope by the School Dean’s or Chair’s Administrative Associate. The School Dean’s or Chair’s Administrative
Associate also will record the names of the voters. Finally, the School Dean’s or Chair’s
Administrative Associate will mix the smaller envelopes and give them to the
appropriate Committee for vote counting.
The department or school can decide if the counting is conducted with a
quorum of faculty members present or if the committee can count the votes.
Proposal
16-92:
Adopted as Amended by
Senate: 29 September 1993
Approved by President:
15 February 1994
Approved by Board of
Control: 18 March 1994
Proposal 6-11:
Introduced to Senate: 10 November 2010
Revised and reintroduced: 23 November
2010
Senate Returned to Committee: 08
December 2010
Revised and reintroduced to Senate: 19
January 2011
Edited (in red)
at Senate Meeting: 19 January 2011
Editorial changes (highlighted in blue):
2 February 2011
Adopted by Senate: 02 February 2011
Amended by Administration (in green):
11 March 2011
Amendments Adopted by Senate: 23 March
2011