The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Proposal 6-11 (revised Jan 19, 2011 and February 2, 2011)
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
“Proposal to Establish University-wide Procedures to Search for, Hire, and
Evaluate School Deans and Departmental Chairs”
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 external search for a School Dean and grants the authority to
resolve this issue to the appropriate School 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
external and international in scope.
2.
The proposal contains an annual a 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. for School Dean surveys which requires a threshold level
to be attained before activation.
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.
The department chair may serve
for a third or more terms, but this policy calls for an automatic search after
the serving chair’s second term (sixth year and for every subsequent sixth year). If no other department member puts their name forward for
consideration as chair, the serving chair can make a public presentation and
the department can advance the current chair’s name for re-appointment by the College Dean. In these cases, no evaluation or vote will be
required.
5.
The process regarding the
evaluation of School Deans and Chairs will begin at the year of service the
School Dean or Chair is currently at. 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.
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.
1. In the event of a vacancy in the School Dean's position, the
Provost shall appoint a search committee consisting of at least five faculty
members from the School. The Provost
will consult with the faculty of the School on these appointments. The search
committee will include the following persons:
i.
At least four of
these faculty members must be tenured.
ii. One faculty member from another unit on campus
iii. A member of the advisory board
iv. The Provost in consultation with the faculty of the School will
also appoint a staff representative.
v. One student (chosen by the School’s undergraduate student
organizations).
vi. One graduate student member (chosen by the School’s graduate
students).
2. The search committee shall conduct an international search, in
accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws and University policies
and guidelines. For guidance regarding
procedures and methods of deliberation, the committee will consult Senate Procedures 802.1.1 pertaining to the search procedures for College Deans. The
committee will identify the best-qualified individual. The Provost will make
final selection of the new School Dean.
Approval of the Board of Control is also necessary if the appointment
includes tenure.
3. If
the school has an Associate School Dean position, and in the event of a vacancy
in this position, the School Dean shall appoint an Associate School Dean from
the tenured/tenure-track members of the School faculty. The School Dean’s choice for Associate School
Dean must be confirmed by a secret ballot of the voting members of the School
(as defined in the School’s Charter) within 60 days. In the event the faculty does not confirm the
Associate School Dean, a new Associate School Dean will be chosen by the School
Dean from the tenure-track members of the School faculty and confirmed by
another secret ballot vote.
4.
Appointment of Interim or Acting School Dean:
When it is evident that the School Dean will be unable to perform
his/her duties for more than one semester or a search for a School Dean has
failed, the Provost will appoint an Interim School Dean. If a search has failed, a new search will
begin at the earliest possible opportunity.
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
In 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 1) the Provost, 2) the School
Dean, or
3) 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.
1. The Department Charter shall specify
who is eligible to vote at all stages of the search process.
2. Procedure for Determination as to Internal or External Search: When a new Chair must be selected, the Dean
of the College will visit the department and discuss whether the search will be
open or restricted only to internal candidates.
They will also discuss if the search should be marketed on a national or
international level. Following this meeting, the department's search
committee (as described in section II.A.3)
will hold a vote by secret ballot to gauge faculty opinion (consisting of
yes/no to "Are you in favor of an open search"). The committee will communicate the result of
the vote to the Dean. The College Dean will consider the will of the
faculty, and after consultation with the Provost, will determine if the search
will be an internal only; open, nation-wide; or open, international
search. Both international candidates
and current Michigan Tech faculty are encouraged to apply for any open search,
since the distinction is made here only in reference to publication and
marketing of the search.
3. Search Committee: The Search
Committee for the Chair will be elected through a secret ballot organized by
the Senator of the department and one other faculty member selected by the
department’s faculty. The
number of members on the Search Committee will depend on the number of faculty
in a department. Departments with twelve members or fewer will have a
committee of at least three members. Departments consisting of more than
twelve faculty members will have a committee of at least four faculty members.
If the department has professional staff, one staff member should be elected by
the staff to be on the committee. At the
first convening of the Search Committee, a representative from Human Resources
will be invited to review appropriate hiring procedures. Following this consultation and review, the
committee will determine the process for evaluating and voting upon candidates
after they visit campus. The procedures
must comply with Human Resources policy that promotes best practices ensuring
equal opportunity to all interviewed candidates. No committee member
can be under consideration as a candidate.
4. Search Procedure: The
Search Committee, with input from the present Chair, the Dean, and the
Affirmative Action Officer, will produce the first draft of the position
description and position advertisement.
The Search Committee will complete the Request for Posting Memo and send
it to the Human Resources Office. The Committee
is responsible for ensuring that the search conforms to current legal
requirements, and for maintaining the applicant flow log. Applications for the position are made to the
Chair of the Search Committee.
Departmental faculty may nominate candidates. In the case of an open search, the position
will be advertised in appropriate professional journals, and faculty should
distribute position descriptions to their professional colleagues.
5. Short List of Candidates: The Search
Committee will review the applications to produce a short list of
candidates. These candidates will be
invited for an interview. For each candidate who accepts the
interview invitation, the committee should attempt to obtain independent
assessments from referees not listed by the candidates and should solicit
faculty help in identifying these referees.
If the search is only internal, all applicants will be on the short list
of candidates. The committee is expected
to obtain faculty input during the screening process. No committee member
can be under consideration as a candidate.
6.
Candidate Interviews: The application materials of each candidate
on the short list will be available to all departmental faculty and staff. The letters of recommendation will be
accessible to members of the department, but the letters cannot be copied. The candidates will be informed of this
requirement, and will be furnished with copies of the position description,
departmental charter, statements of departmental goals, and recent annual
departmental report.
While each candidate is on
campus, the Search Committee will make arrangements for each individual to make
two presentations:
1. A technical presentation in his/her field of
specialization that includes trends, directions and opportunities for research
in the field. (In the case of an
internal search, this presentation can be waived.)
2. A presentation that may include, but is not
limited to the following issues: the candidate’s administrative philosophy and
plans for meeting short and long term goals; The direction of undergraduate and
graduate education in the department; Resources needed to attain the goals.
The Search Committee will arrange
the candidate’s schedule and set up appointments with appropriate
administrators and other persons outside of the department (Dean, VP for
Research, Provost, other department chairs if overlapping research interest).
7.
Selection of Chair: After the candidates have completed their
interviews, the Search Committee will arrange a meeting of faculty and staff to
discuss the candidates. The Search
Committee will solicit the opinions of graduates and undergraduate
students. The
Search Committee will conduct a vote by secret ballot to determine if the
candidates are acceptable or unacceptable to serve as Department Chair. The staff vote takes place first, and will be
advisory to the faculty vote. The search
committee will tabulate the votes and take these actions according to the
results:
a.
If only one candidate receives a 2/3 vote of “acceptable,” the
committee forwards that candidate’s name to the Dean.
b.
If two or more candidates receive 2/3 votes of “acceptable,” the
committee forwards the names of all those so considered to the Dean for
consideration.
c.
If no candidate receives a 2/3 “acceptable” votes, but one or more
candidates received 1/2 or more “acceptable” votes, the committee will advance
those names to the Dean for consideration.
d.
If no individual candidate receives more than 1/2 (50%) of the
department’s “acceptable” votes, the committee will inform the Dean that the
search has failed.
8. Failed Search: If the Department finds no acceptable candidates following the
interviews or the Dean is unable to hire a chair from the list of finalists
advanced by the Search Committee, the search is considered to have failed. The Dean will appoint an Interim Chair as
provided by II.A.6.
9.
Appointment of Interim or Acting Chairs:
When it is evident that the
Department Chair will be unable to perform his/her duties for more than one
semester or a search for Chair search has failed, the Dean will appoint an
Interim Chair. Interim Chairs serving
more than two years must be evaluated as detailed in Section B. If a search has failed, a new search will
begin at the earliest possible opportunity.
An Interim Chair is different from an “Acting Chair” or someone
serving as “Next In Charge.” If a
Department Chair expects to be absent from campus or otherwise unable to
perform his or her duties for a period of time, they appoint another individual
to serve as “Next In Charge.” For
somewhat longer absences, they can appoint someone as Acting Chair. “Next In Charge” appointments are intended
only for very brief periods, generally lasting a few days. A serving Chair can appoint an Acting Chair
to cover medium-term absences lasting up to one
semester. If a Chairs that must will be absent for more than one semester, he or she should step down and allow
the Dean to appoint an Interim Chair
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 surveys and reviews. The
surveys need to be conducted so as to provide timely feedback to the Chair so
they can adjust policy or practice before their review for reappointment in
their third year. Departments may use
their discretion regarding the depth and rigor of each evaluation, but must
conduct a survey in the Chair’s second year followed by a review during their
third year (if the Chair is standing for reappointment to a second term),
followed by a survey in the fifth year (irrespective of if the Chair is
standing for reappointment to a third term). There is no evaluation procedure (survey
or review) conducted in the 6th year and this cycle of evaluations
starts anew if a Chair is appointed for a third successive term.
A
mandatory reappointment vote by faculty and staff will occur in the third year.
If a 2/3 majority or greater of the Department’s eligible members vote to
reappoint the Chair then that individual’s name will be automatically forwarded
to the College Dean, the Provost and the President for a decision. If a simple
majority, but less than 2/3 of the Department, vote to reappoint, then the
College Dean will decide whether to reappoint or conduct an external or
internal search for a new Chair. If a serving Chair does not receive at least
50% of the vote to reappoint during their third year review, the Dean will open
a search as defined by II.A. In
addition, if as a result of any 2nd year or 5th year
survey, the Evaluation Committee determines that a majority of the Department
faculty do not support the serving Chair, they may move for their department to
hold a reappointment vote according to Section II.B.8.
After
the serving chair’s second term, there will be a mandatory search (either open or
internal decided as detailed in Section II.A). The Chair is allowed to
run along with other candidates. During
consultation with the Department, if the Dean finds that the current chair is
willing to serve a third term and that no individual in the Department wishes
to be considered for the Chair’s position, he or she may simply reappoint the
Chair. If any individual in the
Department wishes to be considered for the chair’s position, however, the Dean
will initiate a search (at least one at the internal-level).
Chair
Service Year |
Evaluation
Type |
Action
of Administration based on Fraction Support |
||
>
2/3 |
1/2
- 2/3 |
<
1/2 |
||
First |
None |
|||
Second |
Survey |
Results communicated to College
Dean |
||
Third |
Review |
Automatic forwarding of incumbent
for reappointment |
College Dean decides either to
appoint or open search |
Open or internal Search |
Fourth |
None |
|||
Fifth |
Survey |
Results communicated to College
Dean |
||
Sixth |
None |
Open or internal Search (Only if
College Dean warrants
or interest expressed internally). If
no search is conducted, the incumbent Chair is to be reappointed. |
||
Seventh |
Cycle repeats at First above in
case of a continuing Chair. |
3. Self Evaluation by the Department Chair: During an extensive
a 3rd
year review toward the end of a three year term, 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 (found
here). 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.
C.
How to conduct a Secret Ballot Procedure
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