The
University Senate of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 2-14 (revised 09 April 2014)
(proposed admin. amendments in purple: 28 July 2014)
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
Proposal to Modify Senate
Procedure 506.1.1
EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS AND
SCHOOL DEANS
I Introduction
The Senate developed several
shared governance proposals in 1992, one of which was proposal 16-92 for the Review and Reappointment of
Department Chairs and School Deans “Departmental Governance”. Over the years the
procedure evolved and fixes were introduced to address problems encountered.
The current procedure has a separate procedure for review of School Dean and
Department Chair under the same number. Thus, Senators of Departments (Schools)
would vote on modification made to those for School Deans (Department Chairs)
even though they were unaffected by it. Furthermore, modification were made at
some point in the procedure without regard to the overall structure and as a
consequence several contradictory statements got incorporated. The procedure
became baroque and complicated with contradictory statements. In summer of
2013, Senate President, Dean and Chairs of College of Engineering, and Provost
worked on part of the procedure. This proposal was introduced in the Senate on
September 9th 2013. Appendix B shows the old proposal with the following
markups to identify the various problems and solutions.
Red strike
out Deleted in summer of 2013.
Black
Italic New language added in
summer of 2013.
Blue Italic Analysis comments by the Administrative Policy
Committee.
According to proposal 16-92,
each department and school was to establish – as part of their charter –
procedures for searching for a department chair or school dean and for
evaluation and reappointment of the chair or school dean. Senate Proposal 6-11 (Procedure 506.1.1),
adopted in March 2011, established for the first time the same evaluation
process for department chairs and the same process for all school deans. It also states that upon conclusion of a
review the Evaluation Committee should make recommendations on any changes they
deem necessary. After the conclusion of
several chair reviews feedback was received.
After considering all suggestions, the following procedure is proposed
to modify the chair review procedure. At
the same time, the procedure for School Deans is cleaned up and aligned.
The current proposal is a new
format to show clean lines of implementation and attempts to use old proposal
language when possible. Contradictory statements have been removed.
Conceptually, the following changes have been made:
1. A single procedure is used for Department Chairs
and School Deans.
2. The survey instrument now has three sets of
questions. (i) A set specified by College Dean for
all departments in the college, or by Provost for all the schools. (ii) A set
chosen by the review committee (as before) of the academic unit. (iii) Two
questions chosen by the Administrator being reviewed.
3. A separate procedure for conducting survey and
ballot that is significantly more confidential and anonymous which should help
in increasing participation in the review process.
4. Language approved by the Senate for implementation
of the result.
II Terminology
The
administrative responsibilities of Department Chair and School Dean are
similar, as are the three year term of appointments. But the school School Deans reports report to the Provost and the Department Chair Chairs reports report to the College Dean. To develop a common procedure
for the review of Department Chair and School Dean, a terminology is needed
that will be applicable to both.
Academic Unit or just Unit: A school or a department.
Department Chair/School Dean and College Dean/Provost: Throughout
the procedure it will be implicitly understood that Department Chair will be
associated with college Dean and School Dean will be associated with Provost.
Committee: Unit Review Committee
III Frequency of Review
The term of appointment for a Department
Chair/School Dean is three years. Reappointment reviews will take place in
the third year of the first term of appointment. Subsequent reviews for consecutive
appointments will take place in the second year to allow for a search in the
third year if the
evaluation indicates waning support.necessary.
The evaluation process also may
be initiated by the College Dean/Provost or by the faculty (by a
simple majority vote) at any time earlier, but not more than once a year. During the first term, this
evaluation is formative not normative by means of a simple survey instrument
without ballots to provide timely feedback so that the School Dean/Chair can
adjust policy or practice. It is meant
to provide the School Dean/Chair with an opportunity to respond to any problems
early on in their tenure and to demonstrate the ability to lead in a
constructive and inclusive manner.
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.
IV
Constituency and Unit
Review Committee
The Academic Unit Charter shall
specify who is eligible to participate in the evaluation process as well as the
structure and selection of the Committee for the review of their Department
Chair/School Dean. The
Charter shall define if the tabulation of the survey results and ballot counting for faculty and staff
will be separate or together. 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 if a doubt is raised regarding any
individual's eligibility to serve as a member of the Committee.
The College Dean/Provost
will appoint a member from outside the Unit to the Committee. This external
committee member is an observer who ensures the integrity of the review process
is not compromised by
the internal politics of the Unit.
The external member also acts as a liaison to the College Dean/Provost .
Any question related to the implementation
or interpretation of the
this procedure should be directed to the College Dean/Provost either through the external
member or by the chair of the committee.
The College Dean/Provost will ask the Department
Chair/School Dean to establish the Committee as per the Unit Charter in two
weeks. The College Dean/Provost will
also ask the Department Chair/School Dean to write her/his
self-evaluation report as per the description in Department Chair/School Dean's Self-Evaluation and give it
to the College Dean/Provost within two weeks.
VI
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. Address each of the
charges given at the time of his / her appointment.
B. Achievement of the
Unit’s goals for the period of review.
C. Budget and its
management.
D. Growth and quality of
academic programs.
E. Future needs and
directions of the Unit.
F. Any goal that the Department
Chair/School Dean thinks is controversial in the Unit and the effort (s)he made to address the controversy.
The Department Chair/School
Dean is encouraged to provide comparative quantitative data in this report
where relevant.
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 Department Chair/School Dean to answer
questions and provide clarification about the report.
VII
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 Committee’s
activities is provided as Appendix A. The College Dean/Provost will give the following documents
to the Committee.
1. A redacted copy of the letter of appointment
describing the charge given to the Department Chair/School Dean.
2. The self-evaluation report of the Department
Chair/School Dean.
3. Results of the previous evaluation if the Department
Chair/School Dean is seeking another term.
4. A set of survey questions that is common to all
departments in the college or to all schools 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.
After the College Dean/Provost has left the room, the
Committee shall elect its chair, establish (if possible) a convenient meeting
time, and inform the Unit constituents the structure and membership of the
Committee. The Committee is authorized to call Unit constituency meetings as it
deems necessary.
The survey instrument will have
the following components.
(1) A set of questions provided
by the College Dean/Provost in an
electronic file.
(2) A set of question that the
Committee chooses.
The Committee should look
at the survey instruments posted on the Senate site, which are updated each
time an academic unit conducts a review of its administrator. The Committee
should look for questions that will help constituents provide additional information
or perspective on the charge given to the Department Chair/School Dean.
If the survey results are
to be tabulated separately for faculty and staff, then the set of questions for
faculty and staff can be different.
(3) Up to two questions that
the Department Chair/School Dean may provide if (s)he
so chooses.
The survey instruments will be
created in an electronic file that will be later sent to the Senate
Administrative Assistant for conducting the survey as discussed in Survey .
The Department Chair/School
Dean’s self-evaluation report, the redacted letter of appointment describing the charge, and
the survey instruments should be sent (posted electronically) to the
constituents of the unit. This should be followed with meeting of the Unit
Constituents without the Department Chair/School Dean. At the meeting
the past evaluation results may also be shown. The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss, change, and approve the survey instruments. Also a decision should be
made if the comments from the survey will be included verbatim in the report
described in Survey Report.
If necessary, the faculty and
staff meeting may be separate to discuss the survey instruments and release of
comments in the report.
The survey instruments and the
list of e-mail address (faculty and staff separated) will be sent to the Senate
Administrative Assistant (SAA) as per the procedure described in Senate
Procedure 707.1.1 507.1.1. The Senate Administrative Assistant will conduct the survey
for the Unit and return the results in electronic form to the chair and the
external member of the review committee. The Committee chair will inform SAA
the receipt of the files and ask SAA to delete all survey results that (s)he has. It is the responsibility of the chair and the
external member of the Committee to maintain security of these files and the
information that it contains.
The Committee will prepare a
report that includes:
1. Tabulated
results.
2. Summary statements of the major accomplishments and
problem areas for improvement of the Department Chair/School Dean over
the period of evaluation.
3. Verbatim statements if approved by the Unit
Constituency in Unit Constituency Input.
XII
Department
Chair/School Dean’s response
The Committee will give the Department
Chair/School Dean the report generated in the above section The Department
Chair/School Dean will be asked if (s)he would
like to respond to the report before it is presented to the Unit Constituency.
The Department Chair/School Dean has 5 working days to respond to the
report of the Committee.
The survey report will be
augmented with the Department Chair/School Dean’s response and will now
on be called the ‘report’.
If the College Dean/Provost informs the committee that
the Department Chair/School Dean has decided not to seek reappointment
then all review material will be destroyed and the Committee disbanded. The College Dean/Provost will inform the Unit
constituents about the Department Chair/School Dean's decision at the
time of dissolution of the committee.
XIII
Dissemination of
survey results
The Committee will arrange a
closed meeting at which they will circulate the report. Copies of the report
will not be taken outside the meeting room. All but two copies of the report
will be destroyed after the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is the
dissemination of survey material only, and not for additional discussion of the
Department Chair/School Dean's performance.
For the period of review, the Committee will ensure
a copy of the report is available for viewing by the Unit Constituents at a
secure site where no copies can be made. The site can be the College Dean/Provost ’s office
or within the offices of the Unit.
The Committee Chair will ask
the Senate Administrative Assistant (SAA) to conduct the ballot on the question
below as per the procedure described in Senate Procedure 707.1.1 507.1.1.
(Name of Department Chair/School Dean)
should be reappointed and continue as the Department Chair/School Dean of
the unit.
Yes _____________________ No ___________________ No Opinion Abstain_________________
The SAA will return the results of the ballot to
the chair and the external member of the Committee. The Committee chair will inform
SAA the receipt of the result and ask SAA to delete all survey results that (s)he has. The Department Chair/School Dean (first) and the Unit
constituency (second) will be informed of the ballot results by the
Committee.
XV
Report to the College Dean/Provost
A file containing the self-evaluation of the Department
Chair/School Dean, the tabulated results of the questionnaire, the verbatim
comments, the synthesis of open-ended questions, the summary statements of the
committee, the response of the Department Chair/School Dean and the
results of the ballot will be forwarded to the College Dean/Provost .
The 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.
XVI
Report by the
College Dean/Provost
The College Dean/Provost must
prepare a written statement
on the strengths and weaknesses 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.
The College Dean/Provost will meet with the Department
Chair/School Dean to discuss the evaluation, ballot results, and the
reappointment recommendation.
XVII Implementation of the Results
The College Dean/Provost will forward the report and
his/her recommendation through the administrative structure to the University
President.
When the administration
decides to reappoint a department chair or a school dean contrary to a majority
of the voting constituency of either faculty or staff, the College Dean or the
Provost will provide written explanation of the reasons for that decision to
the members of the academic unit.
If two-thirds majority of
the voting constituency of either faculty or staff, votes not to reappoint a
department chair or a school dean, the administration will normally honor the decision
of the academic unit. 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/school.
At a meeting with the Unit, the
College Dean/Provost shall present the
Administration’s decision and discuss the contents of the report. The Department
Chair/School Dean will not be present at this meeting.
XVIII 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 Evaluation
Committee as described First Meeting of the Unit Review Committee. All evaluation material, except that required by
the human resources, will be destroyed once the Department Chair/School Dean
leaves the position.
Appendix A: Sample Time Line
of the Review Process
The time line 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 Unit Review Committee establish its own time line for conducting
review in a timely manner.
Week 1 & 2 The College Dean/Provost
asks
the Department Chair/School Dean to form the review committee and write
the self-evaluation report. See Section Process Initiation.
Week 3 The College Dean/Provost calls the first meeting of
the committee, defines the charge, and gives all relevant documents. The
committee elects chair, and if possible decide on a meeting time and informs
the constituency of the committee structure and membership. See First Meeting of the Unit Review Committee
Week 4 Committee develops survey
instruments for the constituencies. See Survey Instrument.
Week 5 Unit constituency to approve the
survey Instrument. See Unit Constituency Input
Week 6-7 The Committee send the survey
instruments and list of e-mail addresses to the Senate Administrative Assistant
who conducts the survey and return the results as per procedure described in
Senate Procedure 707.1.1 507.1.1. See Survey .
Week 8 Committee writes report. See Survey Report.
Week 9 Committee Send Report to the Department
Chair/School Dean and obtain her/his response. See Department Chair/School Dean’s response.
Week 10 Committee calls a meeting of the Unit
Constituency for reading of the report and establishes a secure site where any
constituent can see the report. See Dissemination of survey results
Week 11 Ballot for reappointment is conducted
as per procedure described in Senate Procedure 707.1.1 507.1.1. See Balloting
Week 12 The Committee sends the report to the College Dean/Provost . See
Sections Report to the College Dean/Provost and Report by the College Dean/Provost
Week 13 The College Dean/Provost writes the report and calls
Unit Constituency meeting to discuss it. See Report by the College Dean/Provost
.
Appendix B: Annotated
Proposal 6-11
Following scheme is used to
identify changes and problems in the 506.1.1 procedure that was approved as
proposal 6-11 on 23 March 2011 [The existing procedure]
Red strike out Deleted
in summer of 2013.
Black Italic New language added in
summer of 2013.
Blue Italic Analysis
comments by the Administrative Policy Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
Senate Procedure 506.1.1 states that upon
conclusion of a review the Evaluation Committee should make recommendations on
any changes they deem necessary. After the conclusion of several chair reviews
feedback was received. After giving all of the suggestions consideration the
following procedure is proposed to modify the chair review procedure. No
changes are proposed to the School Dean review in this proposal.
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, The University 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. [The
underlined statement has been addressed by the Senate Motion at the Senate
meeting 543.]
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 is a review process. This statement does not
belong here.]
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. [This is a review process. This statement
does not belong here.]
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.[Belongs to Charter]
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.[The underlined statement has been
addressed by the Senate Motion at the Senate meeting 543.]
2.
[School
of Forestry is the only academic unit that evaluates Associate School Deans and
it is written in their Charter. It does not belong in a University Procedure] 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.
[Nothing
prevents any unit for writing this in their Charter] 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 who 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.[What
kind of conflict of interest are we talking here that are not even defined in
university policy? Let Dean resolve these unspecified conflicts]
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 term of appointment for a Chair is three years.
The Chair’s performance will be assessed by means of a survey conducted in the
second year of the first term of appointment. The survey needs to be conducted
to provide timely feedback so that the Chair can adjust policy or practice
before the reappointment review. This second-year survey does not
include a ballot regarding reappointment.
Reappointment reviews take place in the third year
of the first term of appointment. Subsequent reviews for consecutive
appointments take place in the second year 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.[Contradicted
by later statement. The underlined statement has been addressed by the Senate
Motion at the Senate meeting 543.].
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 Evaluation Committee will create a survey questionnaire to be used
to 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 those
who are eligible to participate in the survey as defined by the Department
Charter. 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. The survey participants shall be given 7 calendar days to return the completed
form to the Evaluation Committee.
The questionnaire should include but not be limited
to addressing 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.
5. Processing
of Questionnaire Results: [Also discussed in Dissemination 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 synthesize comments from the
open-ended questions and prepare summary statements of the major
accomplishments and problem areas of the Chair over the period of evaluation.[Comments should be verbatim if
possible. In any case the verbatim comments should be given to the Dean] The committee will comment on progress in previously
identified problem areas. Results of the previous evaluation may be obtained
from the College Dean.[The Dean should give these to the committee at the
first meeting, before the survey instrument is designed.]
6. Chair's
Response: The Evaluation Committee will give the Chair a complete
copy of the survey results, which may includeing tabulated
results, synthesis 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, synthesis 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)
a secret ballot. The ballot will be sent only to the members of the senate constituency in the
department eligible participants 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.
The Dean will report the ballot
results to the Chair during their meeting described in Section 10. [That is a big change without a
discussion by the Senate].
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. [Contradicts earlier statement. The
statement has been addressed by the Senate Motion at the Senate meeting 543.].
10. Report
by College Dean: When
Whether a Chair is reappointed, or denied reappointment the direct supervisor of the Chair College Dean 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 Dean will meet with the Chair to discuss the
evaluation, ballot results, and the reappointment recommendation.
The Dean will forward the evaluation results and
his/her report to the Provost and President who will make the final decision on
reappointment.
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.
The College Dean shall present and discuss the
contents of the report at a meeting with the Department. The Dean will also
inform the Department of the ballot results at this meeting. The Chair will not
be present at this meeting.
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.
How to conduct a Secret Ballot Procedure
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.[Will be using procedure described in
Senate Procedure 707.1.1 507.1.1]
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
Adopted by Senate: 02 February 2011
Amended by Administration: 11 March 2011
Amendments Adopted by Senate: 23 March 2011
Proposal 2-14:
Introduced to Senate: 26 March 2014
Added by Committee
highlighted in yellow:
02 April 2014
Approved Amendment highlighted
in green: 09 April 2014
Vote postponed for 2 weeks
Approved by Senate: 23 April 2014
Approved by Administration with amendments (in purple): 28 July
2014
Senate Approved Amendments: 24 September 2014
Corrected typographical error in five places from Senate Procedure #707.1.1 to 507.1.1: 19 November 2014