The
University Senate of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 13-13
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
REVIEW AND REAPPOINTMENT OF
DEANS OF COLLEGES
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.
For colleges 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 Section IV. 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 budgetary crises, 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 letter of appointment describing 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 Section VI and VII 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 each
department charter 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
In the time line below the
schedule refers to time when 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 Section II.
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 III and IV.
Week 2 The
provost calls the first meeting of the committee, defines the charge, and gives
all relevant documents. See Section V.
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 Section VI
Week 4 Subcommittees meet to develop
questionnaire for the constituencies. See Section VI
Week 5 The committee meets and discusses
the questionnaire developed by the subcommittees. See Section VI.
Week 6 Input from subcommittee constituency
and the dean sought. See Section VI
Week 7 The committee finalizes plans for
conducting of the survey. See Section VII
Week 8 The survey is conducted. See Section VII
Week 9 Subcommittees write summary reports
on their questionnaire. See Section VII
Week 10 The committee discusses reports from
subcommittees and starts the draft report. See Section VII
Week 11 The committee finalizes the draft
report and sends it to dean. See Section VII
Week 12 The committee meets with the dean. See
Section VIII
Week 13 The committee receives the dean’s
written response. It meets to discuss the recommendation and finalize the
report. See Section IX
Week 14 The report is disseminated in each
department as per its department charter 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 X and XI.
Week 15 Copies of report used for
dissemination in the department are destroyed. The committee has a final
meeting with the provost. See Section XI
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
comments:
Introduced to Senate: 27 March 2013
Approved by Senate: 10 April 2013
Approved by Administration: 19 April 2013