The
University Senate of Michigan Technological University
EVALUATION
PROCEDURES FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS AND SCHOOL DEANS
(Proposal
16-92)
(Proposal
6-11)
(Proposal
7-16)
(Proposal
3-17)
Senate Procedures 506.1.1
I. Introduction
This is the
common procedure for the evaluation of the department chairs and the school
deans. The school deans report to the provost and department chairs
report to the college dean. Throughout this document the following terminology
is used.
Department
chair/school dean and college dean/provost: pairing of the department chair
with the college dean and the school dean with the provost
Academic unit
or just unit: a department
or a school
Review
committee: unit review
committee
II. Frequency
of Review
The term of
appointment for a department chair/school dean is three years. A reappointment
review will take place in the third year of each term of appointment, and will
be initiated within the first seven weeks of the fall semester. The evaluation
process may also be initiated by the college dean/provost or by the entire
unit constituency (by a simple majority vote) at any time earlier, but not more than once per calendar year. Evaluations
may be initiated by faculty during the first year only by a two-thirds majority vote.
At any point in
the evaluation process, the department chair/school dean may decide not to seek
reappointment. In this case, the review process ends and all material related
to the review process will be destroyed by the review committee.
III.
Constituency and Unit Review Committee
The unit
charter shall specify the unit constituency and who is eligible to participate
in the evaluation process and vote, as well as the structure and selection of
the committee for the review of their department chair/school dean. The unit
charter shall define if the survey and ballot will be done for the entire unit
constituency as a whole, or separately for faculty and staff. The
committee will not include the current department chair/school dean or any
faculty or staff member who has a conflict of interest regarding the current
department chair/school dean’s review. The college dean/provost will resolve
any conflict of interest situation if it is raised with respect to any
individual’s eligibility to serve as a member of the review committee.
The committee
also includes a member from outside the unit appointed by the college
dean/provost. This external committee member only functions as an observer who
ensures the integrity of the review process. The external member also acts as a
liaison to the college dean/provost.
The review
committee is charged with following senate procedures 506.1.1 (this procedure)
and 507.1.1 to conduct and complete an evaluation of the department chair/
school dean. The voting process shall follow the unit charter and senate
procedures. In case of inconsistency, the intent of the senate procedure takes
precedence.
The entire
university community recognizes the effort that service on a review committee
requires. It is important that everyone involved with the process be
vigilant in maintaining collegiality and professionalism. It is also important
that the confidential nature of the process be respected in order to protect
the unit constituency, the review committee, and the individual under review.
The review of a chair or dean is an important task, and the strength and
integrity of the institution depends upon it being conducted in a way that
encourages continual improvement of the university as a whole.
Any question
related to the implementation or interpretation of this procedure should be
directed to the college dean/provost through the chair of the committee.
IV. Review
Process Initiation
The college
dean/provost will ask the department chair/school dean to establish the
committee as per the unit charter; the
committee should be established within two weeks of
the dean's/provost's request. The college dean/provost will appoint a
member from outside the unit to serve on the committee. The college
dean/provost will also ask the department chair/school dean to write her/his
self-evaluation report (Section V. Department Chair/School Dean's
Self-Evaluation) and provide it to the college dean/provost within two weeks.
V. Department
Chair/School Dean's Self-Evaluation
The department
chair/school dean should prepare a written document evaluating his/her
performance for the period of evaluation. This document should include but need
not be limited to:
a. addressing each of the charges given at the time of his/her
appointment
b. achieving of the unit’s goals for the period of review
c. budgeting and its management
d. growth and quality of academic programs
e. future needs and directions of the unit
f. any issue
that the department chair/school dean thinks is controversial in the unit and
the effort he/she made to address the controversy
The department
chair/school dean is encouraged to provide comparative quantitative data in
this report where relevant.
VI. First
Meeting of the Unit Review Committee
The college
dean/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 review committee’s activities is provided
as Appendix A. The college dean/provost will give the following documents
to the review committee.
a. redacted copy of the letter of appointment describing the charge
given to the department chair/school dean
b. electronic copy of the self-evaluation report of the
department chair/school dean
c. results of the previous evaluation if the department
chair/school dean is seeking another term
d. a set of survey questions that is common to all units in
the university
The review
committee shall decide if additional material is needed (for example,
comparative data from institutional analysis) and seek to procure such
material.
The review
committee shall elect its chair, establish its structure and inform the college dean/provost and the entire
unit constituency of this structure; as
well as the purpose and membership of the review committee.
The department
chair/school dean will provide her/his self-evaluation to the review
committee. This self-evaluation will be forwarded, in an electronic
form, by the review committee to the entire unit constituency.
The
distribution of this report will be followed by a meeting of the unit
constituency. The purpose of this meeting will be for the department
chair/school dean to respond to questions and provide clarification about the
report.
VII. Survey
Instrument
The survey
instrument will have the following components.
The survey instrument
should address (but not be limited to) the following, in order to assist the
dean/provost in responding to the specific questions required by the senate
i. guidance and management of the quality and growth
of the academic programs within the unit
ii. guidance and support of research activities within the unit
iii. practice of sound financial management within the unit
iv. management and guidance of personnel within the unit, including
professional growth and retention
v. definition of goals within the unit and progress of the unit toward these established
goals
Additional
survey questions that have been used in the past by various units can be a
useful guide and are found here: http://www.mtu.edu/senate/evaluations/forms/
If required by
the unit charter for the tabulation of survey results and the conduct of the
ballot to be done separately for the faculty and staff in the unit
constituency, then two instruments are required. These two instruments may be
different depending on separate decisions of the faculty or staff (VIII. Unit
Constituency Input).
c. up to two questions that the department chair/school dean may provide
if he/she so chooses
d.
insertion of two boxes for the free written comments; one that can be
seen by everyone in the unit including the unit’s chair/dean and their
immediate supervisor (the college dean for department chairs and the provost
for school deans), and one that can only be viewed by the unit’s chair’s/dean’s
immediate supervisor. Associated with each box there will be a compulsory
question asking the constituents to individually select if they want their
comments to summarized by the review committee in the report or produced
verbatim.
VIII. Unit
Constituency Input
The department
chair/school dean’s self-evaluation report, the redacted letter of appointment
describing the charge, and the survey instrument should be made available electronically to
the entire unit constituency. This should be followed with meeting of the unit
constituency without the department chair/school dean present. At the meeting
the past evaluation results may also be shown. The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss, change, and approve the survey instrument.
If required by
the unit charter that survey
results and ballots be tabulated separately
for faculty and staff, then faculty and staff in the unit constituency will
meet separately to discuss their respective survey instruments.
In all cases,
the survey results, including
comments, must be treated with confidentiality in mind, and
viewed and discussed only
by people authorized in this procedure.
IX. Conduct of
Survey
Senate Procedures 507.1.1 pertain to the conduct of the survey. Senate Procedures 507.1.1 govern
the conduct of the survey. It
is the responsibility of the chair and the external member of the review committee
to maintain security of these files and the information that they contains.
X. Survey
Report
The review
committee will prepare a survey report that includes:
a. tabulated results of the survey
b. the survey comments in the manner elected by
the individual constituents
c. summary statements of the major accomplishments over the period of
evaluation and areas for improvement of the department chair/school dean.
XI. Department
Chair/School Dean’s Response
The review
committee will give the department chair/school dean the survey report, except
for the part that contains the written comments that are intended only for
their immediate supervisors (Section X. Survey Report). The review committee
will provide the department chair/school dean the option of responding to the
report before it is presented to the unit constituency. The department
chair/school dean has five working days to provide a written response to the
report of the review committee.
The survey
report will be augmented with the department chair/school dean’s response (if a response is supplied; these two
documents along with the chair's/dean's self-evaluation report will from
here on be called the “unit evaluation report”.
If the college
dean/provost informs the review committee that the department chair/school
dean has decided not to seek reappointment then all review material will be
destroyed by the review committee. The college dean/provost will dissolve the
review committee. The college dean/provost will inform the unit constituency
about the department chair/school dean's decision at the time of dissolution of
the review committee.
XII.
Presentation of Unit Evaluation Report
The review
committee will arrange a closed meeting at which they will circulate the unit
evaluation report. Copies of the unit evaluation report will not be taken
outside the meeting room. All the circulated copies
of the unit evaluation report will be destroyed after the meeting. The purpose
of the meeting is the presentation of unit evaluation report, and not for
additional discussion of the department chair/school dean's performance.
For the period
of review, the review committee will ensure two copies
of the unit evaluation report are available for
viewing by the unit constituency at two secure
sites where no copies can be made, as
unauthorized copying compromise the integrity of the process. One site will be situated in the office of the
college dean/provost. The other site will be situated in the unit.
XIII. Balloting
The final
ballot goes to the constituency identified in the unit charter; the Senate
Administrative Assistant (SAA), on request from the chair of the
review committee, conducts the actual online process for balloting through the
procedure outlined in 507.1.1.
(Name of
department chair/school dean) should be reappointed and continue as the
department chair/school dean of the unit.
Yes
_____________________ No ___________________ Abstain_________________
The SAA will
return the results of the balloting
(two sets of ballots
faculty and staff vote separately),
to the chair and the external member of the review committee. The review
committee chair will inform the SAA
of the receipt of the results
of the ballot and ask the SAA
to delete all the voting
results in the senate office. The department chair/school dean (first) and the
unit constituency (second) will be informed of the ballot results by the review
committee.
XIV. Unit
Evaluation Report to the College Dean/Provost
A file
containing a copy the unit evaluation
report and the results of the ballot will be forwarded to the college
dean/provost. Upon receipt of this file, the college dean/provost, will notify
the review committee to destroy any remaining copies of the unit evaluation
report and any other material related to the review process.
The review
committee will write a memo to the senate president and the college
dean/provost with the recommendations for changes in the evaluation procedure
(if any) to support continuous
improvement of the process.
XV. Final
Report by the College Dean/Provost
The college
dean/provost must prepare a written final report of the evaluation of the
department chair/school dean, including but not limited to the following areas:
a. guidance and management of the quality and growth of the academic programs
within the unit.
b. guidance and support of research activities within the unit
c. practice of sound financial management within the unit
d. management and guidance of personnel within the unit
e. definition of goals within the department and progress of the unit toward
these established goals.
f. a confidential appendix is allowed that is not shared
with the unit in cases where the college dean/provost feels the need to
formally document progress, problems or advice with only the department
chair/school dean. This appendix is included with the final report and
forwarded through the administrative structure to the President.
The college
dean/provost will meet with the department chair/school dean to discuss the
final report of the evaluation, ballot results, and the reappointment
recommendation.
XVI.
Implementation of the Results
The college
dean/provost will forward the final report and her/his recommendation
through the administrative structure to the university president.
If the unit
constituency of either faculty or staff (or both combined, if a single ballot
was conducted for the entire unit constituency), by a two-thirds majority votes
against the reappointment of the department chair/school dean, the
administration will normally honor the decision of the unit.
When the
administration decides to reappoint a department chair/school dean contrary to
the majority vote of the unit constituency of either faculty or staff (or both
combined, if a single ballot was conducted for the entire unit constituency),
the college dean/provost will provide written explanation of the reasons for
that decision to the members of the academic unit.
At a meeting
with the unit, the college dean/provost shall present the administration’s
decision and discuss the contents of the final report. The department
chair/school dean will not be present at this meeting. The final report of the evaluation, not including the
confidential appendix, by the college dean/provost will be shared with the unit and forms the basis for the
discussion in the meeting.
XVII. Closure
and Storage of Evaluation Material
All evaluation
material will be kept in the office of the college dean/provost, and will be
supplied to the next review committee (Section VI. the First Meeting of the
Unit Review Committee). All evaluation material, except that required by the
office of human resources, will be destroyed once the department chair/school
dean leaves the position.
XVIII: Sample
Timeline of the Review Process
The timeline
below is suggestive and not prescriptive. It is possible to reduce the total
time for the review process by doing some activities simultaneously. It is
recommended that the review committee establish its own timeline for conducting
the review in a timely manner. The evaluation process should be
done with expediency - the recommended timeline is as follows:
Weeks 1 &
2: The college dean/provost requests the department chair/school dean to
form the review committee and write the self-evaluation report. (Section IV.
Review Process Initiation, and Section V. Department Chair/School Dean's
Self-Evaluation)
Week 3: The
college dean/provost appoints the external member of the review committee,
calls the first meeting of the review committee, defines the charge, and
provides the review committee with all relevant documents. The review committee
elects a chair, decides and informs the college dean/provost and the unit constituency
on the review committee’s structure, purpose and membership. (Section VI. First
Meeting of the Unit Review Committee)
Week 4: The
review committee develops survey instrument(s) for the constituency. (Section
VII. Survey Instrument)
Week 5: The
unit constituency approves the survey instrument(s). (Section VIII. Unit
Constituency Input)
Weeks 6-7: The
review committee sends the survey instrument(s) and list of email addresses to
the SAA who conducts the survey and return the results. (Section IX. Conduct of
Survey, and Senate Procedure 507.1.1)
Week 8: The
review committee writes the survey report. (Section X. Survey Report)
Week 9: The
review committee sends the survey
report to the department chair/school dean and solicits her/his response.
The review committee compiles the unit evaluation report. (Section XI.
Department Chair/School Dean’s Response)
Week 10: The
review committee calls a meeting of the unit constituency for the presentation
of the unit evaluation report and to establish a secure site where the unit
constituency can view the report. (Section XII. Presentation of Unit Evaluation
Report)
Week 11: Ballot
for the reappointment is conducted (Section XIII. Balloting and Senate
Procedure 507.1.1)
Week 12: The
review committee sends the unit evaluation report and the ballot results to the college dean/provost. The
college dean/provost informs the review committee of the receipt of unit
evaluation report and ballot results.
The review committee destroys all evaluation related material. (Sections XIV.
Unit Evaluation Report to the College Dean/Provost)
Week 13: The
college dean/provost writes the final report and meets with the department chair/school dean to
discuss the final report and the recommendation for the reappointment. (Section
XV. Final Report by the College Dean/Provost)
Week 14: The college dean/provost calls
the unit constituency meeting to discuss the final report and the decision of
the administration on the reappointment. (XVI. Implementation of the Results)
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
Proposal 7-16:
Introduced to Senate: 04 November 2015
Revised and reintroduced
to Senate: 18 November 2015
Amended at Senate Meeting:
09 December 2015
Amended at Senate
Meeting: 20 January 2016
Amended at Senate
Meeting: 03 February 2016
Approved by Senate:
17 February 2016
Editorial changes
provided by Provost (in
blue): 07 April 2016
Senate Approved editorial
changes: 20 April 2016
Approved by Administration
with Editorial Changes: 20 April 2016
Proposal 3-17:
Introduced to Senate: 19 October 2016
Approved by Senate: 02 November 2016
Approved by Administration Pending Editorial Changes (in blue): 20 January 2017
Senate Approved Editorial Changes: 01
February 2017