TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                 Page

1.         Rationale for 11/21/03 Recommended Changes in October 14, 2003     

            Committee Draft …………………………………………………………...   2

2.         Original Summary of Committee Report…………………………………...     3

3.         Revised Section II-28.5……………………………………………………..  5

4.         Amended Chapter 28: Academic Review…………………………………..    13

December 1, 2003

TO:          Faculty Senate, University of Iowa

FROM:  Ad hoc Committee on Amended Procedures for the Periodic Review of Collegiate Deans (Ekhard Ziegler, Medicine, Chair; David Baldus, Law; Terry Boles, Business; Kenneth Cmiel, Liberal Arts and Sciences; and Erin Irish, Liberal Arts and Sciences)

Re:       Rationale for November 21, 2003 Recommended Changes in the Committee Draft Submitted to Faculty Council October 14, 2003

            1.  We have deleted from the amended section II-28.5 (at Tab “Section II-28.5”) all references to DEOs and program heads and directors.  References to the review of these administrators have also been deleted from II-28.3, which formerly covered the review of both the departments/programs and their administrators. 

The amended II-28.3 now is limited to reviews of the departments and programs and a new II-28.3A now covers the review of DEOs and program heads and directors.  See p. 26 under Tab “Chapter II-28.”  The new II-28.3A leaves the entire question of how these reviews will be conducted to the discretion of the colleges. 

Section II-28.5 is now limited to deans and central academic officers (as defined in II-28.4).  There is a clarification on p. 5 that II-28.5 procedures do not apply to associate and assistant deans and provosts.  They are covered by Section II-28.6.

            2.  There are also suggested changes dealing with other council requests (page references below are to the amended Section II-28.5 under Tab “Section II-28.5”):

                        a.  timing of reviews– p. 6,

                        b.  clarification of “at odds” as a conflict between the initiator’s re-appointment decision and  the committee’s recommended reappointment decision –

pp. 11-12. 

            c.  To avoid ambiguity on the faculty questionnaire for question (3) (b) (v), p. 10, (used only in reviews of deans), about whether the administrator should be re-appointed, we have changed the possible responses for that answer from a 1 to 5 rating of approval to a yes or no response. 

                        d.  timing of (a) administrator’s response to the committee’s report and (b) the provost’s transmission of the committee’s evaluation to the faculty -  p. 10.

                        3.  The references in the faculty questionnaire to the “administrator” will  read “dean” since that is the only administrator to whom these questions now apply.  See pp. 9-10.

October 1, 2003

TO:          Faculty Senate, University of Iowa

FROM:  Ad hoc Committee on Amended Procedures for the Periodic Review of Collegiate Deans (Ekhard Ziegler, Medicine Chair, David Baldus, Law, Terry Boles, Business, Kenneth Cmiel, Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Erin Irish, Liberal Arts and Sciences)

RE:          Original (October 1, 2003) Summary of Committee Report with

               Highlights

            The committee worked during the summer of 2003 to revise Operations Manual Section II-28.5, which regulates the periodic review of academic administrators.  Our charge was also to recommend changes to the other sections of “Chapter II-28: Academic Review” that apply to collegiate deans. 

            Our final report consists of (a) this “Summary of Committee Report with Highlights,” (b) a completely revised version of Section II-28.5 at Tab “Section II-28.5,” and (c) a series of proposed amendments to the other sections of Chapter II-28: Academic Review, which are at Tab “Chapter II-28” with proposed deletions struck through and proposed additions underlined.  The completely revised version of II-28.5 at Tab “II-28.5” is in clear text with no strikethroughs or underlines.

            I.  Our proposed amendments leave in place in its entirety the current system for the review of central academic administrators (president, provost, vice presidents). 

            II.  For the review of academic administrators who report to deans (departmental executive officers, program heads, and directors), our only substantive recommendation concerns the process for collecting information from the relevant faculty and the distribution of that information to the relevant faculty.  We propose a modification of that process to bring it into conformity with the procedure that we propose for the review of collegiate deans. This approach will maintain consistency in the collection and distribution of information in the reviews of deans and administrators who report to deans that exists under the current rules.

            III.  Since different academic officers are responsible for initiating reviews (e.g., the provost and deans), we have introduced the term "initiator" to describe these officers.  We use the term "administrator" when referring to officers under academic review.

            IV.  Our proposed changes consist of (1) a completely rewritten Section 28.5, which, if adopted, will replace in its entirety, the current 28.5, and (2) minor changes to the other sections of II-28 needed to bring them into conformity with the changes we recommend for Section 28.5.

   V.  Highlights of the proposed amendments:

            A.  Academic deans will be reviewed every five years without regard to when the dean’s office/unit is reviewed (Proposed 28.5 b.).  If the two reviews happen to occur in the same year, the reviews will be conducted by separate review committees.  The current system, which calls for a single committee’s review of the college and the dean, has proven to be unworkable.  This was a major motivation for the appointment of our committee.  The timing of the reviews of all other academic administrators will continue according to current policy.

            B.  The composition of the committees reviewing collegiate deans will be subject to University policy, which provides collegiate discretion on the composition of the committee for those colleges that wish to deviate from the university-wide policy (Proposed 28.5 d.).

            C.  As part of the review of each dean and administrator reporting to an academic dean, the review committee will administer to the relevant faculty an anonymous questionnaire consisting of five core required questions and any other questions agreed upon by the committee and the academic officer responsible for the appointment of the committee (initiator) (Proposed 28.5 f. (3)-(6)).

                        1.  The answers to the five core question shall be reported to the faculty unless the initiator decides not to reappoint the administrator (Proposed 28.5 g. (4) (a) & (b)).  The answers to all of the other (supplementary) questions in the questionnaire shall be reported to the relevant faculty unless the initiator decides not to reappoint the administrator (Proposed 28.5 g. (4) (a)) or the committee and the initiator decide before the questionnaire is administered that answers to some or all of the supplementary questions should not be shared with the faculty (28.5 f. (6) & g. (4) (b).

                        2.  The failure of an initiator to report the anonymous answers as required by this new provision will constitute a grievable action by the faculty against the initiator (Proposed 28.5 g. (4) (c)). Under current university policy, faculty members have no legal recourse against an initiator who fails to share answers to the questionnaire with the relevant faculty.

            D.  We recommend a continuation of the current requirement that the initiator, in addition to the answers to the faculty questionnaire, transmit to the relevant faculty the “recommendations and the substance of the evaluation” of the review committee (28.5 g. (4)).

            E.  Our recommendations call for no change in the manner in which information is collected from and disseminated to relevant constituencies in reviews of central academic officers.

Attachments: (1) amended Section 28.5 at Tab Section II-28.5 and (2) amendments to remaining sections of Chapter 28 at Tab Chapter II-28

Recommended Revision of Section II-28.5

To Replace the Existing II-28.5 in its Entirety

(Committee 11.21.03 proposed amendments to the draft presented to Faculty Council 10/14/03 are as follows: deletions with strikethroughs; additions are in italics)

II-28.5 PERIODIC REVIEW OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS.

            The procedures described in this section pertain to periodic reviews of central academic officers (president, provost, vice presidents) and deans.  These procedures do not pertain to the review of other administrative officers reporting to central academic officers or to deans, which fall under Section II-28.6.  Procedures for the review of departmental executive officer and program heads and directors are described in Section II-28.3A.

Table of Contents

a.   Purpose

b.   Timing

c.   Responsibilities

d.   Review Committee

e.   Scope

f.    Procedures

g.   Review Report

h.   Initiator's Assessment of the Administrator’s Performance

i.    Ad Hoc Reviews

j.    Procedural Variations

a. Purpose.

A periodic review of an academic administrator should have the following objectives:

(1) the development of a meaningful basis for the decision about whether or not to reappoint the administrator,

(2) to provide support for the legitimacy of the administrator's reappointment, if it occurs,

(3) enhanced administrative performance of the administrator,

(4) increased professional development for the administrator, and

(5) improved accountability of the administrator to appropriate constituencies;

b. Timing. 

            Periodic reviews of collegiate deans shall occur every five years without regard to the timing of the review of the college.  Reviews of central academic officers shall coincide with the periodic review of the officer's office or academic unit.  Ad hoc reviews of deans may be conducted outside the five-year cycle according to the provisions of subsection II-28.5.i.

c. Responsibilities.

(1) The individuals with responsibility for initiating periodic reviews of academic offices and academic units, as specified in II-28.2 (collegiate review) II-28.3 (departmental and program review) and II-28.4 (reviews of central administration), also have the responsibility for initiating periodic reviews of the respective academic officers. These individuals (hereinafter "initiators") shall receive the report of the review committee and shall be responsible for determining whether or not to offer the administrator a reappointment for an additional term.

(2) The administrator shall be responsible for preparing for the initiator and the review committee a self-assessment of his or her performance during the period under review.  The self-assessment shall take into account recommendations of prior reviews, the goals and mission and, if applicable, the most recent strategic plan of the office or academic unit.  The administrator’s self-assessment shall be delivered to the initiator before the review committee is appointed. 

(3) The review committee shall be responsible for gathering the information necessary to conduct the review and for preparing an assessment of the administrator’s performance.

d. Review Committee.

(1) Membership. For each periodic and ad hoc review, a review committee (hereinafter the “committee”) shall be organized to compile information and make recommendations to aid in the overall assessment of the administrator.  For reviews of central academic officers departmental executive officers, program heads, and directors, the composition of the committee shall be as described in 28.3, and for reviews of as described in 28.4.  For the review of deans, the composition of the committee will be determined by a collegiate rule (within the parameters of subparagraph (a) below), or in the absence of such a rule, by the rule set forth in subparagraph (b) below.

 (a) Collegiate rules governing the review of the dean shall prescribe the composition of a review committee with six to eight members consisting of:

[1] One staff member from the college appointed by the staff council,

[2] One faculty member from outside the college appointed by the Provost,

[3] Two or three faculty members of the college appointed by the faculty (by election or otherwise as prescribed by collegiate rule), and

[4] Two or three faculty members of the college appointed by the Provost.

(b) In the absence of a collegiate rule governing the review of the dean, the review committee shall consist of the following six members:

[1] One staff member from the college appointed by the staff council,

[2] One faculty member from outside the college appointed by the Provost,

[3] Two faculty members of the college elected by the collegiate faculty, and

[4] Two faculty members of the college appointed by the Provost.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection, the definition of  “faculty members” is equivalent to the definition of faculty members who may vote in collegiate elections of representatives to the faculty council and faculty senate.

e. Scope.

The committee shall evaluate the administrator’s performance within each of the following areas, taking into account the degree to which each area relates to the administrator’s responsibilities.  The committee should consult with the initiator in identifying those aspects of the following areas that are most pertinent to assessing the administrator’s performance:

      (1) Goal formation and attainment. Has the administrator taken a leadership role in formulating appropriate goals for the office or unit, reflecting awareness of educational and professional trends, and has he/she consulted with faculty of the office/unit in the process of doing so?  If goals were agreed upon at the beginning of the period under review, to what degree have those goals been attained?

      (2) Scholarship. Does the administrator encourage scholarship among the faculty and does he/she create an environment that fosters and encourages scholarly pursuits? Does he/she recognize excellence in scholarship?

      (3) Educational leadership. How well does the office/unit fulfill its educational mission?  How effective is the administrator in stimulating discussion of new ideas about teaching and in encouraging and guiding promising developments through to implementation?  Has the administrator helped to provide an environment within the office/unit and between the office/unit and other parts of the University that enhances the educational efforts of faculty and students?  Does the administrator establish a congenial educational environment?

      (4) Personnel management.  Does the administrator show concern for and zeal in recruiting or encouraging the recruiting of the highest quality new appointments available?  How well does the administrator do in choosing, evaluating, and supervising subordinates reporting directly to him/her?  How well does the administrator’s office perform in general?

      (5) Resource management. Does the administrator seek to obtain resources that are adequate to enable the office/unit to achieve its full academic potential and does he/she arrange for appropriate support services for the office/unit?

      (6) Relationships among constituencies. Does the administrator establish and enhance good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and those other administrators with whom the administrator regularly interacts?

      (7) Planning and policy-making.  Does the administrator (a) involve the faculty and other relevant constituencies in planning and policy-making; (b) provide opportunities for consultation through individual and group meetings; and (c) provide information (with the exception of information to which access is restricted by other policies) in a timely, full, and open manner to facilitate effective participation in planning and policy-making?

      (8) Human rights. Does the administrator provide effective leadership in the implementation of University policies relating to human rights, including policies on affirmative action?

      (9) Promoting constructive innovation. Does the administrator encourage constructive suggestions for new goals or programs, or new ways for accomplishing ongoing goals more effectively?

      (10) Scope of leadership. Has the administrator demonstrated knowledge of developments and educational leadership beyond his or her office/unit, including campus-wide leadership and leadership at the state or national level, as appropriate to his or her responsibilities?

f.  Procedures.

(1) The committee shall devise mechanisms for obtaining information and evaluations from relevant faculty, staff, and students with regard to the relevant performance areas identified in section e. The chair of the committee will consult with the initiator concerning the mechanisms to be used, and the identity of any other constituencies from which information or evaluative statements should be solicited.

(2) Central Academic Officers. The review committee evaluating a central academic officer will be responsible for soliciting from all members of the University community written and/or oral evaluations of the performance of the officer and the office under review.  The committee will meet as often as necessary to review, discuss, and summarize in writing the results of this evaluation process, and to prepare any recommendations they deem appropriate.

(3) Reviews of deans. departmental executive officers, program heads, and directors  In partial fulfillment of their duties under the preceding subparagraph, committees reviewing deans, departmental executive officers, program heads, and directors shall collect through a questionnaire anonymous faculty evaluations of the administrator.  The questions will be informed by the categories of administrative performance listed in section e to the extent that they are relevant.  The faculty questions will conform to the requirements of subsections (a) - (c) below, while the form and content of the questions directed at staff and students will be solely within the committee’s discretion.

(a) Faculty respondents will be instructed to circle their responses for a single category/number on the following scale:

                                No chance to observe/-----------1-------------2-------------3--------------4---------------5

                           Not Applicable                     Strongly      Disagree        Neither          Agree          Strongly

                                                                                Disagree                          Agree or                              Agree

                                                                                                                     Disagree/Neutral            

Each question will also provide an opportunity for a qualitative narrative response.

(b) At a minimum, the faculty questionnaire shall ask respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the following five statements (the “core questions”):

(i) The dean administrator has my trust and respect.

                                                                    1          2          3          4          5

 (ii) The dean administrator does a good job in discharging the teaching mission of the unit.

                    No chance to observe            1          2          3          4          5

(iii) The dean administrator does a good job in promoting the quantity and quality of faculty scholarship.

                    No chance to observe            1          2          3          4          5

(iv) The dean administrator is an effective and fair administrator.

                    No chance to observe            1          2          3          4          5

(v) The dean administrator should be re-appointed for another term.

                                                                    Yes                   No      

(c) Before the faculty questionnaire is administered, the Provost and the review committee shall jointly determine those questions, if any, the answers to which shall not be distributed to the constituent faculty under subsection g.(4)(b) below.  However, none of the five core questions enumerated in subsection (3)(b) above may be included in such a joint agreement.  In the event of a joint agreement not to distribute the responses to one or more questions to the faculty, the questionnaire shall clearly indicate the questions whose answers shall not be distributed to the faculty. 

 g. Review Report.

(1) Preparation. The committee is responsible for assembling the information obtained from the faculty, staff, and students, formulating conclusions, and making a recommendation concerning the retention of the administrator.  It shall compile a report containing this information and those conclusions and recommendations shall be confidential.

(2) Opportunity for Response.  Upon completing its report, the committee shall transmit the report to the initiator who shall provide the administrator with a complete copy and permit the administrator to prepare a written response within 30 days.

(3) After receiving the administrator’s response, if any, the committee will finalize the report.

(4) Informing faculty in the case of reviews of deans.  departmental executive officers, program heads, and directors  In the case of such reviews, the Provost shall, after receiving the final report assembled under this section and in consultation with the review committee, transmit the recommendations and the substance of the committee's evaluation to the constituent faculty.  Transmission to the faculty shall be within two months of the Provost's receipt of the committee's report, but not in the summer.  In transmitting the results of the faculty questionnaire, the Provost shall report the response rate (the number and the proportion of the constituent faculty completing the questionnaire) and the aggregate responses to each question posed to the faculty in the questionnaire, subject to the following limitations:

(a) If the Provost decides not to reappoint the administrator, or the administrator elects not to seek reappointment, it will be solely within the Provost’s discretion which of the aggregate responses, if any, are reported to the faculty. 

(b) Responses to the five core questions as defined in subsection f.(3)(b) must be reported to the constituent faculty.  If the committee and the Provost have jointly determined pursuant to subsection f.(3)(c) that the aggregate response to any other question should not be shared with the faculty, the Provost may not share with the faculty the aggregate response to that question.  In the absence of such an agreement, or the presence of one of the circumstances noted in subsection (a) above, the initiator shall report to the faculty the aggregate responses to all questions in the questionnaire. 

(c) In the absence of one or more of the circumstances specified in subsections (a) and (b) above, a failure of the Provost to share such responses with the faculty will constitute a “Violation of a University Obligation” to the constituent faculty within the meaning of Section III-29.6 a.(2) (a) of the Operations Manual.  Such a violation will constitute grievable conduct under Section III-29.6, and shall be actionable by faculty members, notwithstanding that the Provost made no written promise about the matter and the faculty member filing the grievance did not rely detrimentally on such a promise.  See Section III-29. 6f. (1).

 (d) In every case, the Provost shall consult with the review committee concerning the transmission of the substance of the review committee's report to appropriate constituencies other than faculty, such as students and staff.

(5) Informing Relevant Constituencies in the case of Reviews of Central Academic Officers: The final report shall be distributed in the manner provided in Section 28.4.g.(4).

h. Initiator's Assessment of the Administrator’s Performance

(1) Initiator Assessment. An additional step is required in the review of every administrator who is eligible for and willing to provide continued administrative service. This final step shall be an explicit written affirmation by the initiator that continued service by the administrator would be in the best interests of the University. Such an affirmation may be unconditional, or may be conditioned on changes in the administrator's subsequent performance or on the receipt of a positive assessment of the administrator under a future ad hoc review.  Administrators should consult with the initiator regarding guidelines for the handling of instances in which no affirmation is possible, or in which the initiator believes some significant improvement in performance is necessary, even if the administrator's performance is not so weak as to warrant a change in administrative leadership.

(2) Reporting. In addition to the communication called for by paragraph g.(4) of this subsection, each constituency consulted in connection with a periodic review of an administrator shall receive appropriate and timely feedback as to the initiator's decision regarding the administrator. This shall include express notification of the faculty that the initiator has affirmed that continued service by the administrator would be in the best interests of the University.  In the event that the initiator makes a determination concerning an administrator's continued service that is at odds with the faculty views solicited under paragraph f.(3) of this subsection, the retention recommendation of the review committee based on its overall assessment of the administrator, the initiator shall discuss with the faculty the reasons for reaching a contrary determination.

    i. Ad Hoc Reviews.

(1) Constituent faculty may conduct ad hoc reviews of their administrator. Such reviews shall occur when ordered by the initiator (a) on his or her own motion, (b) upon the request of the administrator, or (c) upon the request of the faculty pursuant to subsection (2) below.

(2) The faculty, as defined in section d.(1)(c) above may request an ad hoc review of the administrator by petitioning the initiator.  If 50% or more of the faculty petition the initiator, he/she shall order an ad hoc review.  If 25% to 50% of the faculty petition the initiator, he/she shall meet with the petitioning faculty and discuss the request.  Thereafter, the initiator shall decide whether to order an ad hoc review.

(3) Ad hoc reviews will be conducted in the same manner as periodic reviews subject to modifications jointly agreed upon by the initiator and the committee pursuant to section j. below.

j.  Procedural Variations.

The initiator may consider and approve, for good cause shown, departures from these procedures in the case of particular reviews, if the initiator and the review committee agree that variations from these procedures are appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.

Recommended Amendments to Chapter II-28

(Recommended Deletions with Strikethroughs-

Recommended Additions Underlined)

2003 University of Iowa Operations Manual

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART II. COMMUNITY POLICIES

DIVISION I HUMAN RIGHTS, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

(Written to conform to Regents Procedural Guide 3/74; amended 9/93; 10/95;

9/97)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 28: ACADEMIC REVIEW

(President, upon recommendation of the Faculty Senate, 1981; amended 1986,

1988, 1989, 1990, 2/16/93, Board of Regents 2/7/95)

     28.1 General Purpose

     28.2 Collegiate Review

     28.3 Departmental and Program Review

     28.3A Reviews of DEOs and Program Heads and Directors

     28.4 Reviews of Central Administration

     28.5 Periodic  Review of Academic Administrators

     28.6 Annual Review of Administrators

28.1 GENERAL PURPOSE.

The fundamental role of the academic review process is to aid the University

community in its continual striving for excellence and efficiency in its

teaching and research through systematic review of its performance and

direction on every level-from that of departments and programs, through

colleges, and ultimately to the University as a whole. The specific purposes

of the review process include the following:

     a. to identify and reassess missions and goals;

     b. to examine functions in terms of quality and continuing need;

     c. to establish priorities for programmatic development;

     d. to evaluate the effectiveness with which program activities promote

     the welfare of faculty, staff, and students;

     e. to review the financial structure with regard to sources of funds

     and amounts required to support essential goals and objectives;

     f. to establish a base for future development; and

     g. to evaluate progress in the area of diversity, both as to

     under-represented minorities and women.

The benefits to be derived from academic reviews are varied and relate to

all levels of the University. The process of preparing a self-assessment in

itself can lead to new insights concerning functions, problems, needs, and

future directions on the part of the academic unit. Service on review

committees broadens the perspectives of faculty concerning the missions and

interrelationships of departments, programs and colleges within the

University. The results of reviews can provide one basis for determining

departmental, collegiate and University priorities for program development

and resource allocation. Finally, the review system represents the

fundamental component of the University's long-range planning process

through which the Board of Regents will assess the future needs and

development of the institution. In sum, the academic review process plays a

critical role in maintaining institutional vitality, planning, and improving

the quality of our programs, facilities, staff, students, faculty, and

administration. Therefore, the Provost will report annually to the Faculty

Senate's Budgetary Planning and Review Committee on the results of academic

reviews, stressing the implications of reviews for planning at the

University level.

The following policies and guidelines are meant to emphasize the need for

clearly defining the various components of the review process and the

procedures to be followed so as to make this process more widely understood

and effective. In addition, these policies focus on the importance of a full

consideration of the recommendations resulting from the review. In

establishing appropriate guidelines and procedures, the college(s) should

consider the specific suggestions included in the reports of the University

Faculty Senate Committee on Collegiate and Departmental Reviews dated April

19, 1977 and February 5, 1978.

Except for reviews of administrators for whom the President is responsible,

the Provost shall have overall responsibility for monitoring the

implementation of this section.

28.2 COLLEGIATE REVIEW.

     a. Purpose. Systematic collegiate review should assist the faculty,

     dean, and University administration in 1) evaluating how effectively

     the college is achieving its educational goals; 2) identifying the

     college's strengths and weaknesses; and 3) developing strategic plans

     and priorities for future directions of the college. Evaluation based

     on pertinent information collected for the purpose of answering

     specific questions about the college's various components and

     activities will provide a firm foundation for evaluating the college.

     Review, particularly of a small college, need not be long and complex.

    It should concentrate on essentials. A collegiate review has three two

     parts -- a self-study of the college and its programs by the collegiate

     faculty and administration, a faculty assessment of the dean, and a

     peer review by University faculty members from outside the college

    with consultation by appropriate persons from off campus.

     b. Timing. Reviews of colleges shall take place at least once every

     seven years and ordinarily not more frequently than once every five

     years. Where possible, reviews should be coordinated with external

     accreditation evaluations. Reviews may also be scheduled to coordinate

     with other specific circumstances, e.g., a pending change in collegiate

     leadership or an impending significant change in resource needs.

     In order to assure that the review can benefit evaluation and planning

     in a timely fashion, the process of review should begin in the last

     half of the preceding year. Generally, it is anticipated that the

     collegiate self-study will be completed by the end of the first

     semester of the review year, that the peer review will be conducted

     during the second semester and that the final report will be submitted

     prior to the end of the academic year.

     c. Responsibility. Collegiate reviews are initiated by the Office of

     the Provost and that office organizes and directs the process and

     formulates the final conclusions. The Office of the Vice President for

     Research and the Dean of the Graduate College also will be involved in

     those matters germane to their areas of responsibility, e.g., research,

     graduate studies, developing programs.

     d. Scope.

          (1) In General. The collegiate review should represent a

          comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the college's function,

          with recognition of the mutual dependency of programs and

          activities. An able student body, a faculty engaged in effective

          teaching and scholarship, effective performance of staff members,

          effective collegiate administration, and adequate facilities all

          contribute to the success of a college and must be reviewed as a

          whole.

          Although all collegiate reviews are to be comprehensive, the focus

          will vary from college to college. It is not intended that

          collegiate reviews duplicate the specific evaluations of programs

          provided through departmental or program reviews. In

          departmentalized colleges, the results of departmental or program

          reviews during the preceding seven-year cycle will serve as one

          source for review of the college. In such cases, the collegiate

          review will focus primarily on evaluations of college-wide

         programs, policies, organization, funding, etc. In

          non-departmentalized colleges, in which departmental/program

          reviews have not been conducted (with the possible exception of

          some graduate programs), the collegiate review will involve a more

          in-depth evaluation of each specific program in the college.

          (2) Major Areas to Be Considered. Major areas to be considered in

          collegiate reviews include the following:

               (a) Collegiate Mission and Goals: The overall mission and

               goals of the college and their contribution to the University

               mission should be examined.

               (b) Strategic Plan. The suitability of the collegiate

               strategic plan and progress toward achieving plan goals

               should be examined.

               (c) Students. Projected student enrollment over a seven-year

               period, admissions policies and procedures, quality,

               advising, governance, placement services, student perceptions

               of the college, its program, faculty, and administration.

               (d) Educational Programs. All instructional programs of the

               college should be assessed in regard to:

                    (i) the relation of the program to the goals of the

                    college;

                    (ii) the continuing need for the program;

                    (iii) the overall quality of the program; and

                    (iv) the interaction of faculty and students with other

                    parts of the University (e.g., development of and

                    participation in interdisciplinary programs).

               (e) Research Programs. The scope and excellence of research

               programs and their contribution to instruction.

               (f) Service Programs. The nature of programs or individual

               efforts that provide services to the college, to the

               University, to the state, to the nation, and to others; the

               contribution of service activities to instructional and

               research programs.

               (g) Faculty. A profile of the faculty including educational

               background, teaching effectiveness, scholarly and creative

              contributions, and service. The assessment of faculty

               obviously is related closely to evaluation of educational,

               research, and service programs.

               (h) Facilities and Support Services. The adequacy of space

               and support facilities such as library, computers, staff

               assistance, instructional aids, equipment, and supplies.

               Assessment in this area also is related closely to evaluation

               of instructional, research, and service programs.

               (i) Functioning of the College.

                    (i) organizational structure of the college, including

                    committees, communication among faculty, students, and

                    dean; adequacy of the structure for discharging regular

                    collegiate responsibilities.

                    (ii) role of faculty, students, and administration in

                    collegiate affairs and the nature of their interaction.

                    (iii) relationship of the college to the University, the

                    alumni, and the field.

                    (iv) effectiveness of collegiate strategic planning and

                    plan implementation processes.

               (j) Financial Resources. The financial structure of the

               college should be reviewed on a program-by-program basis with

               regard to source and amount of support and in terms of

               educational, research, and service objectives.

   (k) Collegiate Administration. A review of collegiate  administration shall be completed as part of the  academic review process, under the terms of II-28.5.

          (3) Criteria for Program Evaluation. The program review should

          result in assessments based on the primary criteria of quality and

          centrality, and the secondary criteria of student demand,

          potential for excellence, external impact, and cost. These

          criteria are defined in the document Criteria for Institutional

          Enhancements and Reductions.

     e. Self Study Committee. The Provost shall initiate the collegiate

     self-study by requesting the college to organize a representative

     self-study committee. The self study committee shall be organized in

     accordance with procedures adopted by the collegiate faculty at least

     one (1) year prior to the year in which the self study is to occur.

     Procedures adopted by the collegiate faculty shall be approved by the

     Provost. These procedures shall set forth the size and qualifications

     for membership on the self study committee and shall include the method by which members of the self study committee shall be selected. They shall also provide for what role, if any, the dean of the college and the Provost shall play in the selection of the self study committee. In the absence of any such procedures, the Provost shall appoint faculty of the college to serve on the self study committee.

     The self-study committee is charged with developing the collegiate

     self-study with the cooperation of the dean, collegiate faculty, staff,

     and other members of the University community, as the committee

     determines. The self study committee has the responsibility for

     organizing and conducting the self-study in relation to the review

     topics listed in this policy. The self study committee will conduct the

     review so as to ensure broad consultation with the faculty, students,

     staff, and administration of the college and, if deemed appropriate by

     the self-study committee, with external constituents of the college.

     Copies of the self-study report shall be forwarded to the dean and

     faculty of the college for their review and comment. Thereafter, and

     following such other endorsements as may be required by collegiate

     rule, final copies, revised if appropriate, shall be forwarded to the

     dean of the college and to the Provost of the University. The final

     self-study shall be made available to the public.

     f. Self-Study.

          (1) General. The collegiate self-study is at the heart of a

          successful review. It assures that the college is reviewing its

          condition. The college should reexamine its goals, reflect, with

          as much sound data as possible, on how various activities

          contribute to the achievement of those goals and identify

          priorities and directions for the future. Thus, a self-study

          should not be solely a description of current programs and

          activities; it also must involve evaluation and projection. It

          should anticipate programmatic changes that may be required by 

          new developments in knowledge or in societal conditions, including

          enrollment projections based on demographic and other relevant

          data. It should serve as stimulus to systematic consideration of

          current and future directions of the college by the major

          collegiate constituencies.

          (2) Data. Much of the data needed for the self-study can be

          obtained from the Office of the Provost, the collegiate

          administration, and, often, from recent accreditation materials.

          The self-study committee should consult with the collegiate

         administration and the Office of the Provost to determine what

          types of data are needed for the review. The collegiate

          administration and the Provost shall provide the committee with

          those data.

          (3) Self-Study Report.  The committee shall prepare two reports as part of the review process: 1) the overall self-study, and 2) an assessment of the dean, as required by II-28.5, unless by collegiate rule the assessment of the dean is undertaken by another committee.  The committee shall prepare a report that shall include information and data on which the self-study was based and the conclusions reached about the strengths, weaknesses, and future directions of the college. Particular            attention should be given to ways in which improvements in programs and functions can be achieved within currently available, or if indicated, reduced collegiate resources. Sources of flexibility for resource reallocations should be identified in the self study.

The self study committee also is responsible for planning and implementing a mechanism for assessing the performance of the collegiate dean as required by II-28.5 unless by collegiate rule the assessment of the dean shall be undertaken by another committee.

     g. Limitation on Role of Dean. The dean of the college shall not play a

     significant role in the selection of the members of any committee that

     has the responsibility to assess the performance of the dean as

     provided by this section or by II-28.5.

     g. Post Self-Study Procedures.

          (1) University Review. Peer group review of the college will be

          accomplished by a "review committee" of University faculty from

          outside the college appointed by the Provost. The committee will

          be advised by one or more consultants from off campus appointed by  the Provost.

          The chair of the review committee will meet with the Provost to

          plan the specific steps to be taken and to establish a tentative

          timetable for the review.

          The committee shall consider the self-study and related documents

          and interview faculty, staff, students, and administration of the

          college under review. It will ascertain the relationships of the

          college to other academic units in the University, evaluate its

          programs and come to some conclusions about appropriateness of

          goals and the degree to which these have been attained. It will

          help to identify strengths and weaknesses of the college and will

          make recommendations concerning possible improvements and future

          directions in  the college.

          The committee will prepare a report on its findings and

          conclusions and will submit a preliminary draft of the report to

          the collegiate dean and the college self-study committee so that

          errors of fact and problems in wording may be identified and

          corrected. The review report shall not contain confidential

          personnel information concerning the collegiate dean or

          other collegiate personnel. The final report and recommendations

          of the committee will be submitted to the Provost and to the

          collegiate dean. Copies of the review report will be made available to

          students and faculty in the college and, upon request, to others.

          (2) Consideration and Implementation of the Review Report. After

          submission of the report of the review committee, further

          consideration of the review results generally will include the

          following steps:

               (a) The dean and the self-study committee will be invited to

               respond in writing to the review findings and

               recommendations. Such responses, if any, will become part of

               the total review report.

               (b) The Provost will meet with the review committee to

               discuss the report and the collegiate response in order to

               clarify the findings and recommendations as needed.

               (c) The Provost will discuss the results of the review

               process, including the report of faculty assessments of

               the dean, with the dean.

               (d) The Provost will meet with the collegiate faculty or, if

               the faculty wishes, with a representative group of faculty,

               to discuss the review findings and recommendations, including

               the faculty assessments of the dean.

               (e) The Provost will submit recommendations concerning the

               college to the President.

               (f) The Provost will report to the dean and collegiate

               faculty the steps to be taken in response to the review

               recommendations. If some review recommendations are not to be

               implemented, the reason for the decisions also will be

               reported.

               (g) When the college's strategic plan is next updated, the

               internal recommendations resulting from the review should be

               incorporated into the college's strategic plan.

h. Procedural Variation. The Provost shall consider and may approve

     departures from these procedures in the case of particular reviews,

     where the Provost and the faculty agree that variations from these

     procedures are appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes  

     of collegiate review.

28.3 DEPARTMENTAL AND PROGRAM REVIEW.

     a. Purpose. Systematic departmental review should assist the faculty,

     dean, and University administration in 1) evaluating how effectively

     the department is achieving its educational goals; 2) identifying the

     department's strengths and weaknesses; and 3) developing strategic

     plans and priorities for future directions of the department.

     Evaluation based on pertinent information collected for the purpose of

     answering specific questions about the department's various component 

     and activities will provide a firm foundation for evaluating the

     department.

     Review, particularly of a small department, need not be long and

     complex. It should concentrate on essentials. A departmental review

     has two three parts -- a self-study of the department and its programs by 

     the departmental faculty and administration, a faculty assessment of the

     chief administrative officer of the department, and a peer review by

     University faculty members from outside the department with

     consultation by appropriate persons from off campus.

     b. Timing. Review of a specific department shall be carried out at

     least every seven years. The collegiate dean(s) shall establish a

     schedule for review of departments or programs within the college.

     Variations from the schedule may be justified for a review to occur

     before or after the usual period due to specific circumstances, e.g., a

     pending change in departmental leadership, specific problems that arise

     or the desirability of coordinating a review with an external

     accreditation evaluation.

     c. Responsibility. The Provost has the responsibility for establishing

     general policy and procedural guidelines for departmental reviews. The

     Provost shall carry out this responsibility in consultation with

     appropriate faculty and administrative groups.

     Within these general guidelines, the faculty of each college has the

     primary responsibility for establishing specific policies and

     procedures for departmental reviews. The collegiate dean has the

     responsibility for such reviews in accord with such policies and

     procedures. However, when graduate programs are involved, the

     specific college and the Graduate College share these responsibilities

     on a joint basis. In such cases, integrated procedures and guidelines for

     joint review of undergraduate and graduate programs in a unit are to be

     established.

     Note: Throughout this subsection the terms "college(s)" and "collegiate

     dean(s)" are used to refer to a specific college or dean, to the

     Graduate College or Dean, or to both functioning on a joint basis as

     specified in the above policy.

     d. Scope.

          (1) Units Reviewed. The basic units, for purposes of review, are

          defined as follows:

               (a) In departmentalized colleges, the basic review unit is

               the individual department, school, or division, except as

               noted in subparagraph (b) below. Each such unit shall be

               reviewed as a whole with the review covering all

               undergraduate and graduate instructional programs that are

               the responsibility of the unit as well as the research and

               service programs of the unit. The term "departmental

               executive officer" (abbreviated DEO) refers to the academic

               administrator of any such unit.

               (b) In instances where instructional programs do not

               correspond with departments, schools, or divisions (e.g.,

               interdisciplinary programs), such programs will be reviewed

               separately, except that undergraduate and graduate programs

               are to be reviewed jointly whenever feasible.

               (c) In non-departmentalized colleges, the undergraduate or

               professional instructional program of the college shall be

               reviewed as part of the collegiate review process. Reviews of

               graduate programs within non-departmentalized colleges also

               may be incorporated into the overall collegiate review, or

               the collegiate dean and Dean of the Graduate College may

               jointly establish a separate schedule of reviews for such

               programs.

          (2) Elements of Review. A departmental review shall include a

          self-study, an assessment of the departmental executive officer

          under II-28.5, and an external review. Reviews should represent a

          comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of a department or program

          with recognition of the mutual dependency of programs and

          activities. An able student body, a faculty engaged in effective

          teaching and scholarship, effective administration, and adequate

          facilities and support services all contribute to the success of a

          department or program and must be reviewed as a whole.

          (3) Areas to Be Considered. The college(s) shall define the areas

          to be considered in reviews (e.g., mission, goals, and strategic

          plan, students, faculty, educational programs, research and

          creative activities, service programs, facilities, support

          services, departmental administration, and financial resources).

          Factors to be evaluated and questions to be answered should be

          specified in each area.

          It is intended that reviews be focused on specific areas and

          questions that are most relevant to the particular department or

          program. These areas and questions should be specified by the

          college(s) prior to each review in consultation with the

          department. As a result, the exact focus of the self-study and

          review will vary among departments.

          (4) Review Emphases. Emphasis in the departmental review should

          be  placed on evaluating the need for various programs based on

          enrollment projections, their quality, and the way in which they

          relate to the goals of the program, the college, and the

          University.

          The program review should result in assessments based on the

          primary criteria of quality and centrality, and the secondary

          criteria of student demand, potential for excellence, external

          impact, and cost. These criteria are defined in the document

          Criteria for Institutional Enhancements and Reductions.

          Particular attention should be focused on ways in which

          improvements in programs and functions can be achieved within

          currently available departmental resources, or if indicated by

          enrollment trends and other factors, with appropriately reduced

          resources. The review should identify areas of flexibility in

          resources which could allow future allocations.

     e. Review Committee. The dean will ask the departmental faculty to

     determine in consultation with the DEO the process for preparing the

     self-study report.

     f. Self-Study. The first, and most crucial, step in the review process

     is the self-study to be carried out by the department or program

     faculty. The college(s) will establish specific guidelines to aid the

     department or program in preparing the self-study. These guidelines

     should ensure that the self-study:

         (1) is evaluative, not solely descriptive, and identifies

          priorities and directions for the future;

          (2) is carried out with consultation among faculty, students, and

          other appropriate groups;

          (3) considers those quantitative data, including future enrollment

          projections, that are needed to provide an adequate description

          and evaluation of current and future status of the department;

          Note: A standardized data format should be determined by the

          college(s). The use of data in standard formats already available

          in departments, colleges, or the Office of the Provost will reduce

          the need for special data collection efforts.

          (4) is distributed so as to make it available to all departmental

          faculty for their input or comment, prior to its being edited in a

          final form; and

          (5) in final form shall be available for public dissemination. It

          will be made available to the department's faculty and to the

          external review committee members prior to the external review

          (see II-28.3g(1) below).

     g. Post Self-Study Procedures.

          (1) External Review. The review process will involve review by a

          committee of University faculty from outside the department under

          review, advised by one or more consultants from off campus. The

          committee and external consultants are selected and appointed by

          the collegiate dean(s). The college will establish specific

          guidelines for conduct of the external committee review, such

          guidelines to include the following areas:

               (a) specification of the composition of review committees and

               of procedures by which members and outside consultants will

               be selected and appointed;

               (b) establishment of time limits for conducting the review

               and submitting the review report;

               (c) specification of the areas to be reviewed and specific

               questions to be answered;

               (d) specification of individuals or groups to be interviewed

               and other activities to be carried out during the review;

              (e) a format for the review report; and

               (f) specification that the review report shall not contain

               confidential personnel information concerning the

               departmental executive officer or other department personnel.

          (2) Consideration of Report and Administrative Response. The

          college(s) will clearly define the procedures for considering and

          responding to review reports. These procedures must include the

          following:

               (a) mechanism by which factual errors can be corrected by the

               department or program;

               (b) provision for a meeting of the collegiate dean(s) with

               the review committee if needed to clarify aspects of the

               report;

               (c) a mechanism for a written response from the faculty of

               the department to the report;

               (d) mechanisms for consideration of the report within the

               college and Graduate College, if appropriate (e.g., by the

               dean, collegiate committee, or council, or other mechanism);

               (e) meetings of the collegiate dean(s) with the Provost to

               consider the report and recommendations; and

               (f) mechanisms for reporting in a timely fashion to the

               department or program concerning the steps to be taken in

               response to review recommendations and the reasons some

               recommendations may not be implemented.

          (3) Dissemination of Review Reports: The external review committee will submit its report to the collegiate dean(s), to the Provost (two copies each), and to the department or program (two copies).  Any written response from the department or program will become part of the review report.

          It is the policy of the University (Faculty Senate Minutes, March

          29, 1978), that review reports shall be made available to

          departmental faculty and students and, upon request, to others.

     h. Procedural Variations. The Dean shall consider and may approve

     departures from these procedures in the case of particular reviews,

     where the dean and the departmental or program faculty agree that

     variations from these procedures are appropriate and would be

    consistent with the purposes of the review.

     [top]

28.3A  REVIEWS OF DEOS AND PROGRAM HEADS AND DIRECTORS

a.      Purpose.  The primary purpose of these reviews are twofold: 1) to provide  an occasion for deans to evaluate personnel in charge of programs and departments; and 2) to permit a systematic faculty evaluation of department and program leadership.

b.      Timing. The timing of reviews of DEOs, program heads, and directors shall be established by collegiate rule. 

c.       Responsibility.  The faculty of each college has the responsibility to establish policies and procedures for reviews of DEOs, program heads, and directors.  The collegiate dean has the responsibility to conduct these reviews in accord with such policies and procedures.  However, when graduate programs are involved, the specific college and the Graduate College share these responsibilities on a joint basis.  In such cases, integrated procedures and guidelines for joint review of undergraduate and graduate programs in a unit are to be established.

28.4 REVIEWS OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION.

     a. Purpose. The primary purposes of this academic review program are

     twofold: 1) to provide an occasion for central administration officers

     to evaluate their programs and sub-units and, in return, to explain the

     roles, functions, procedures, and activities of their offices and

     officers to the faculty; and 2) to permit a systematic faculty

     evaluation of these offices and officers aimed at making

     recommendations for improvements in administrative structure and/or

     performance.

     The review procedure is intended to improve the capacity of

     administrative offices and officers to support and enhance the

     teaching, research, and service goals of the University. Moreover, the

     academic review is intended to facilitate communication between

     administrative officials and the faculty, and to make it possible for

     the faculty to participate actively in the governance of the

     University.

     b. Timing. The Office of the President and the office of each Vice

     President and the Provost of the University should be reviewed at least

     once every seven years. The University President shall consult with the

     Faculty Council in establishing a schedule of reviews.

     c. Responsibility. The President of the Faculty Senate and a central

     academic officer shall be jointly responsible for the conduct of each

     review. For reviews of the offices of the Vice Presidents and the

     Provost, the responsible central academic officer shall be the

     University President. For reviews of the Office of the President, the

     responsible central academic officer shall be the Provost.

     d. Scope. The reviews of central academic offices and the coordinated

     reviews under II-28.5 of central academic officers will focus upon

     operations that are clearly related to academic affairs or to the

     welfare of the faculty. In consultation with the administrator of the

     office under review, the Faculty Senate President and the responsible

     central academic official may include within the review other

     operations of that office. The review should represent a comprehensive

     evaluation of all aspects of the office on which it focuses, with

     recognition of the mutual dependency of programs and activities.

     e. Review Committee.

          (1) Membership. The ad hoc review committee for each central

         administrative office and officer will be appointed by the

          President of the University Faculty Senate and the central

          academic officer responsible for the review, with the advice and

          consent of the Faculty Senate. Normally, the review committee will

          consist of seven persons as follows:

               (a) Chairperson: Appointed by the Faculty Senate President

               and the central academic officer responsible for the review

               with the approval of the Senate.

               (b) External reviewer: Appointed as indicated above from

               among off-campus persons nominated in consultation with the

               central administrator whose office is to be reviewed.

               (c) Two members from the Faculty Senate's Committee on the

               Selection of Central Academic Officials: Two appointed as

               indicated above from among the members of this Committee, in

               consultation with its Chair.

               (d) Three additional faculty members: Appointed as indicated

               above. In the selection of these members, due consideration

               will be given to the representation of various faculty

               concerns, including Faculty Senate membership, and to the

               needs of the review committee for particular kinds of

               expertise, depending upon the office to be reviewed.

               Selection of committee members will be made in accord with

               general University policies and practices regarding

               affirmative action.

          (2) Budget. In establishing a review committee, the Faculty Senate

          President and the central academic officer responsible for the

          review will provide an appropriate budget to make it possible for

          the committee to perform its duties effectively.

     f. Self-Study. In preparation for a review, an office will prepare a

     self-study for the review committee. This Evaluation and Analysis

     Report will include, but not be limited to, the office's goals,

     rationale, programs, services, staffing, resources, internal evaluation

     processes, relations with other offices, and program strategies for

     improvement. The office is also encouraged to provide the review

     committee with the names of faculty members who through frequent

     interaction with the office may be able to provide the committee with

     helpful information for evaluating its performance. Within the general

     categories indicated, the following issues and questions should be

     addressed:

         (1) Goals. What are the various purposes, aims, or goals of the

          office? How are these goals established and what is the faculty's

          role in this process? What priorities are given to the principal

          goals of the office? How have these priorities changed, or what

          plans for changes in priorities are envisioned? What are the goals

          of the sub-units of the office? How well do the subordinate

          administrative units perform?

          (2) Rationale. In what ways are the goals of the office compatible

          with the role of the University and its mission statement? How are

          the programs administered by the office responding to the needs of

          the faculty, staff, and students, the people of the State of Iowa,

          and the nation? How are the office's goals and purposes

          coordinated with those of other University offices and agencies,

          and with the Regents of the University? Where appropriate, what

          are the relationships between the office and the Governor's

          office, the Iowa General Assembly, and other sources of University

          support and funding?

          (3) Programs. What are the program activities of the office? What

          subordinate administrative units are involved in these programs?

          How effective are these programs? What are their strengths and

          weaknesses? Exactly how is the program effectiveness of the office

          determined and evaluated?

          (4) Services. What are the services provided by the office and its

          sub-units? What support and facilities are provided to the

          faculty? How effective are the services provided for or supervised

          by the office? What plans and undertakings are being considered to

          upgrade teaching, research, and service facilities? What

          priorities are attached to present services, or to the logistical

          support services embedded in future plans?

          (5) Staffing. What is the table of staff organization for the

          office? What are the salaries of staff persons? What are the

          strengths and weaknesses of the staff? How are staff persons

          recruited? How is their performance evaluated? Is the present

          staff adequate to provide the programs and services of the office?

          What are future staffing plans?

          (6) Resources. What is the budget for the office? What priorities

          govern the allocation of budget resources administered by the

          office? What proportion of the office budget is allocated for

          activities or functions directly related to faculty teaching and

          research? What have been the changes in budgetary support for the

          office in recent years? How does the office evaluate its budget

          success? Are administrative costs too high, or too low? What

         facilities does the office have at its disposal? Are the

          facilities adequate? If inadequate, what changes need to be made,

          or are being planned? In general, what new resources are needed to

          improve the quality of education, research, and service provided

          by the University?

          (7) Internal Evaluation. What are the procedures used by the

          office for the review and evaluation of that office and its

          subordinate administrative units? What is the timetable for such

          reviews? Have there been external reviews of sub-units? Are there

          plans for such external reviews?

          (8) Relations With Other Offices. How does the office and its

          sub-units interact with other University offices? Does it maintain

          effective communications, cooperation, and coordination with other

          offices as needed? Is there duplication or overlap in functions

          and responsibilities with other offices?

          (9) Strategies for Improvement. What areas in the office's

          performance are most in need of improvement? How does the office

          intend to improve its performance? What are its development plans?

          What specific lines of development are being pursued? How is this

          being accomplished?

          These guidelines are intended to aid the office being reviewed in

          developing an Evaluation and Analysis Report. The report should,

          to the extent possible, emphasize academically related as opposed

          to purely housekeeping activities. Foremost in the report should

          be evaluation and analysis of activities directly associated with

          faculty teaching, research, and service.

     g. Post Self-Study Procedures.

          (1) Committee Authority. Specific procedures for conducting the

          review of central administrative offices and officers will be

          worked out by each review committee commensurate with the needs

          for information and assessments particular to the office involved.

          (2) Consultation and Access to Information. The committee, in

          conducting the review, will confer with all persons (including the

          University President) having responsibility for framing policies,

          directing the office, or approving procedures that affect the

          relationship between the office and the faculty. The committee

          will examine all pertinent documents, and have access to all

          appropriate and necessary information. Opinions concerning the

          performance of the academic office and officer under review shall

          be solicited from members of the University community by at least

         the following means (as well as by any others deemed by the

          committee to be appropriate):

               (a) publication in fyi of a call for such opinions;

               (b) notification of the request for such opinions through the

               channels of administrative organization: deans to notify

               DEOs, DEOs to notify departmental faculty; a parallel method

               is to be used to bring the review to the attention of staff;

               (c) the committee will attempt to identify faculty and others

               who because of their interaction with the office being

               reviewed may have especially useful information to provide to

               the review process, and the committee will solicit the

               comments of such persons.

          (3) Meetings. The committee will meet as often as necessary to

          prepare their reports and recommendations.

          (4) Committee Report. The review committee will prepare an Office

          Report, which will become a public document and will not contain

          confidential information related to the evaluation of the

          performance of the administrative officer. The report will

          summarize the findings of the review committee, and will include

          any recommendations it deems appropriate. This report will address

          the issues required to be discussed in the office self-study. A

          draft of this report will be submitted to the administrator of the

          office under review, primarily to allow for an opportunity to

          correct assertions of fact. The committee will meet and confer

          with the administrator under review and with the University

          President (or, if the University President is under review, with

          the President of the Board of Regents) to explain and discuss the

          principal recommendations in the draft report.

          Once these processes have been completed, the final report will be

          forwarded to the President of the Faculty Senate and to the

          central academic officer responsible for the review. Copies of the

          final report will also be submitted to the administrator of the

          office under review (who may make copies for subordinates in or

          reporting to that office); if the President's office is under

          review, to the Board of Regents; and to the Chair of the Senate's

          Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials.

          Appropriate provision will be made to have copies of the office's

          Evaluation and Analysis Report and the review committee's Office

          Report available to all University faculty members.

         (5) Follow-up. The Chair shall reconvene the review committee

          approximately one year after its report is submitted to determine

          to what extent the recommendations contained in its report have

          been or are being implemented. At least three weeks in advance of

          this meeting, through fyi, the committee will solicit from the

          University community, perceptions of the effectiveness with which

          the recommendations of the Office Report have been implemented.

          When the review was of a vice president's office, this meeting

          will include the President of the University, the vice president

          whose office had been reviewed, and the President of the Faculty

          Senate.

          When the review was of the President's Office, this meeting will

          include the President of the Board of Regents, the President of

          the University, and the President of the Faculty Senate.

     h. Procedural Variations. The central administrator responsible for a

     review and the Faculty Senate President shall consider and may jointly

     approve departures from these procedures in the case of particular

     reviews, where the responsible administrator and the Faculty Senate

     President, in consultation with the officer being reviewed and with the

     Faculty Council, agree that variations from these procedures are

     appropriate and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.

28.5 MULTI-YEAR ACADEMIC REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATORS.

(This section to be replaced in its entirety by the revised section II-28.5 at tab

“Section II-28.5”.)

a. Purpose. With the academic review of a unit or office it is

desirable to a coordinate a review of the unit's administration,

because the unit review can provide a helpful context for evaluation of

the effectiveness of administration. A successful scheme for the

multi-year review of administrative assessment should serve at least

the following objectives:

(1) enhanced administrative performance;

(2) increased professional development for those evaluated;

(3) improved accountability to appropriate constituencies; and

(4) greater communication across all levels of the university

about program goals and their implementation.

In the case of administrators with appointments to an indefinite

term, regular multi-year reviews insure a consultative role for

faculty in the decision whether to continue an administrator in

office. In the case of administrators appointed for a renewable

term, the dates of the administrator's term may not coincide with

the schedule for review of the academic unit. Nevertheless, in the

case of an administrator appointed for a renewable term, the

multi-year evaluation can contribute to the process which will

eventually lead to a decision about whether to reappoint the

administrator.

b. Timing. A multi-year review of an administrator will occur at

the same time that the multi-year review of the administrator's

unit occurs. Thus, reviews of deans will be coordinated with

collegiate reviews under II-28.2, reviews of departmental executive

officers,

program heads, and other administrators who report to deans will be

coordinated with departmental reviews II-28.3, and reviews of central

academic officers will be coordinated with the reviews of their offices

under II-28.4.

c. Responsibility. The individual or individuals responsible for

initiating the academic review of a unit shall likewise be responsible

for initiating the review of the administrator in charge of that unit.

d. Review Committee.

(1) Membership. For each multi-year academic review of an

administrator, a committee shall be organized to help compile

information and make recommendations to aid in the overall

assessment of the administrator by the person or persons to whom

that administrator reports.

(a) Central Academic Officials. In the case of the review of

a central academic official, the committee shall be the

review committee organized under II-28.4e.

(b) Unless otherwise provided by collegiate rule, in the case of a decanal review coordinated with the academic review of the college, the committee shall be the self study review committee organized under II-28.2e. If by collegiate rule a separate decanal review committee is to be appointed to assess the performance of the collegiate dean, the collegiate rules shall also set forth the size and qualifications for membership on the decanal review committee and shall include the method by which members of that committee shall be selected. Subject to the provisions of II-28.2g, the

rules shall also provide for what role, if any, the

dean of the college and the Provost shall play in the

selection of the committee. In the absence of any such

procedures, the Provost shall appoint faculty of the

college to serve on the decanal review committee.

(c) Departmental Executive Officers, Program Heads,

Directors, and Other Administrative Officers Reporting to

Deans. In the case of a review of an administrator

coordinated with a departmental or programmatic academic

review under II-28.3, the dean of the college will ask the

departmental or program faculty or its representative body,

such as an elected executive committee, to nominate faculty

to serve as a committee to review the administrator. From the

nominees, the dean will select a representative review

  committee.

(2) Procedures.

(a) In General. Each review committee shall devise a

mechanism for obtaining information and evaluations from

relevant faculty, staff, and students with regard to the

specific performance areas identified in II-28.5e. The chair

of the committee will consult with the person or persons

responsible for initiating the review concerning the proposed

mechanism to be used, and the identity of any other

constituencies from which information or evaluative

statements should be solicited.

(b) Central Academic Officers. The review committee

evaluating a central academic officer will be responsible for

soliciting from all members of the University community

written and/or oral evaluations of the performance of the

administrator of the office under review. The committee will

meet as often as necessary to review, discuss, and summarize

in writing the results of this evaluation process, and to

prepare any recommendations they deem appropriate.

(c) Deans and Administrators Reporting to Deans. Faculty

evaluations of the administrative performance of deans,

departmental executive officers, program heads, directors,

and similar officers within colleges will include an

official, faculty-administered tabulation of confidential

faculty responses to such questions as the review committee,

in consultation with the person responsible for initiating

the review, shall formulate. Included in these evaluations

shall be responses, including reasons, to the statement, "The

present administrator should be encouraged to continue to

serve as the leader of this academic unit." The review

committee will meet to review, discuss, and summarize in

writing the results of the faculty evaluation of

administrative performance.

A review committee for a department or program administrator

shall conduct its evaluation following those procedures and

additional performance areas, if any, established by the

faculty of the college in consultation with the dean. The

evaluation procedures for the administrator of a department

or program must provide for consultation with all department

or program faculty members in the evaluation of the unit

administrator.

e. Scope. The review committee involved in evaluating an administrator shall seek information regarding the administrator's performance within each of the following areas, taking into account the degree to which each area relates to the administrator's responsibilities. In evaluating any administrator, a review committee should consult with the person or persons responsible for the review in identifying those aspects of the following areas that are most pertinent to assessing the administrator's performance:

(1) Goal formation and attainment. The administrator should take a

leadership role in formulating appropriate goals for the unit,

reflecting awareness of educational and professional trends, and

should consult with members of the unit in the process of doing

so. Goals should be agreed upon with the reviewing authority at

the beginning of the review period. An assessment should be made

regarding the degree to which goals have been attained. (2)

Educational leadership. Effectiveness in stimulating programs

aimed at professional development of faculty and staff, plus

effectiveness in stimulating discussion of new ideas about

teaching and programs and in encouraging and guiding promising

developments through to implementation - encouragement of

scholarly activity.

(3) Quality of personnel policies. Concern for and zeal in

recruiting or encouraging the recruiting of the highest quality

new appointments available; concern for enhancing faculty in

accordance with the clear principle of merit; performance in

applying principles and policies of equal employment opportunity

to the recruiting, advancement and evaluation of faculty and

staff; performance in evaluating associate and assistant

administrators to promote professional development and enhance the

 performance of the administrator's office.

(4) Establishment of a congenial educational environment. Has the

administrator helped to provide an environment within his or her

unit and between the unit and other parts of the University that

forwards the educational efforts of faculty and students?

(5) Resource Acquisition. Administrators who have budgetary

authority for academic units should seek to obtain resources

adequate to enable the unit to achieve its full academic

potential. Administrators should arrange for appropriate support

services for the unit.

(6) Relationships among constituencies. Establishing and enhancing good working relationships with faculty, staff, students, external constituencies, and those other administrators with whom the administrator being reviewed regularly interacts.

(7) Involvement of faculty and other relevant constituencies in

planning and policy making. Providing opportunities for

consultation through individual and group meetings; providing

information (with the exception of information to which access is

restricted by other policies) in a timely, full, and open manner

to facilitate effective participation in planning and

policy-making.

Note: In evaluating the quality of consultation under this

subsection, the review committee should consider that, generally,

consultation should be timely and provide opportunity to become

familiar with the issues involved before a response is made. If

the consultation leads to advice or a recommendation that is

rejected, the party responsible for initiating the consultation

should inform the person or all members of the group whose

advice or recommendation was rejected why that decision was

made; and transmit this explanation in a timely manner, providing

an opportunity for questions and discussion.

(8) Human rights. Providing effective leadership in the

implementation of University policies relating to human rights,

including policies on affirmative action.

(9) Promoting Constructive Innovation. Does the administrator

encourage constructive suggestions for new goals or programs, or

new ways for accomplishing ongoing goals more effectively?

(10) Scope of Leadership. Has the administrator demonstrated

knowledge of developments and educational leadership beyond

his or her unit, including campus-wide leadership and leadership at the

state or national level, as appropriate to the administrator's

responsibilities?

f. Review Report.

(1) Preparation. The committee charged with assembling

information, formulating conclusions, and making recommendations

concerning the performance of an administrator shall not include

that information or those conclusions or recommendations in the

general report concerning the review of the college, department,

program, or central academic office involved. Instead, it shall

compile a second report containing this information and those

conclusions and recommendations, which shall be confidential.

(2) Opportunity for Response. Upon completing its report, the

committee shall transmit the report to the person or persons

responsible for initiating the review, who shall, in consultation

with the committee, permit the administrator being evaluated

to offer a written response to that report.

(3) Informing Faculty and Others. The administrator

responsible for initiating the review of a dean,

departmental executive officer, program head, director, or

similar officer shall, after receiving the evaluative

report assembled under this section and in consultation with

the review committee, transmit the recommendations and the

substance of the evaluation to the administrator and to the

faculty of the administrator's unit. In transmitting the

substance of the evaluation, the administrator shall include

a report as to the aggregate responses to any questions

posed to the faculty in an evaluation survey. The President

of the Faculty Senate shall transmit the substance of a

review of a central academic officer to the Faculty Council

in executive session.

In every case, the administrator responsible for initiating a

review shall consult with the review committee concerning the

transmission of the substance of the review committee's report to

appropriate constituencies other than faculty.

g. Supervisor Assessment of Administrative Service.

(1) Supervisor Assessment. An additional step is required in the

review of every vice president, dean, and department or program

administrator who is eligible for and willing to provide continued

administrative service. The final step in any such review shall

be an explicit written affirmation by the responsible higher

level administrator that continued service by the administrator

being reviewed would be in the best interests of the University.

Such an affirmation may be unconditional, or may be conditioned

on changes in subsequent performance or on the receipt of a positive

assessment under a future supplementary review. Deans should

consult with the Provost, and the Vice Presidents should consult

with the President regarding guidelines for the handling of

instances in which no affirmation is possible, or in which the

higher level evaluator believes some significant improvement in

performance is necessary, even if the reviewee's performance is

not so weak as to warrant a change in administrative leadership.

(2) Reporting. In addition to the communication called for

by paragraph f(3) of this subsection, each constituency

consulted in connection with a multi-year academic review

of an administrator shall receive appropriate and timely

feedback as to the supervisor's certification regarding the

administrator being reviewed. This shall include express

notification of the faculty  of the administrator's unit,

or of the Faculty Senate in the case of a vice presidential

review, that the administrator responsible  for a review

has affirmed that continued service by the administrator

being reviewed would be in the best interests of the

University. In the event that the responsible supervisor

makes a determination concerning a reviewee's continued

service that is at odds with the faculty views required to be

solicited under paragraph d(2)(a) of this subsection, the responsible

administrator shall discuss with the faculty the reasons for reaching

a contrary determination.

h. Supplementary Reviews. Although it is advantageous to coordinate

formal multi-year evaluations of administrators with reviews of their

units, the faculty within a unit may conduct supplementary assessments of their administrator on either an ad hoc or periodic basis. In the case of administrators with renewable term appointments, a review should be scheduled at a time that provides faculty with a consultative role in deciding whether to renew the administrator's term of appointment. A supplementary review may occur when requested by the unit administrator, by the unit faculty, or by the administrator to

whom the unit administrator reports.

Each college shall have written guidelines establishing

mechanisms for supplementary evaluations of deans and other

administrators and for faculty participation in such reviews.

These guidelines shall be drafted, approved, and periodically

reviewed and revised in accordance with the consultative

procedures jointly developed by the collegiate faculty and

administration. The guidelines shall establish procedures

by which the collegiate, department, or program faculty, as

appropriate, will designate a committee to assemble the information,

formulate conclusions, and make recommendations. Supplementary faculty evaluations of administrative performance will include an official, faculty-administered tabulation of confidential faculty responses to such questions as the supplementary review committee shall formulate, but including at least responses to the statement, "The present administrator should be encouraged to continue to serve as the leader of this academic unit." In formulating questions on which to survey faculty, the review committee shall consult with the person responsible for initiating the regular multi-year academic review of the

administrator in question. The review committee will meet to review,

discuss, and summarize in writing the results of the faculty evaluation

of administrative performance. The committee shall prepare a report,

which it shall transmit to the person responsible for initiating the

regular multi-year academic review or the administrator in question.

Such a report shall be treated if it were a report under II-28.5f for

purposes of confidentiality, opportunity for response, and informing

faculty and others of its substance.

i. Procedural Variations. The individual or individuals responsible for

a multi-year academic review of an administrator shall consider and may approve departures from these procedures in the case of particular

reviews, where such individual or individuals agree with the unit

faculty-or, with respect to reviews of central administrators, with the

Faculty Council-that variations from these procedures are appropriate

and would be consistent with the purposes of the review.

[top]

28.6 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATORS.

     a. Applicability. This procedure is intended to guide the President in

     the review of the vice presidents, the Provost in the review of those

     collegiate administrators reporting to the Provost, and each dean in

     the review of those administrators of collegiate departments or

     programs who report to the dean.

     b. Agreement of Goals. Each year, each administrator being reviewed and

     each person evaluating an administrator ("the evaluator") will agree on

     a brief written statement of goals the administrator will pursue during

     the coming year. These goals should be linked both to the general

     categories within which the administrator is assessed on a multi-year

     basis (for example, "educational leadership"), and to particular

     priorities identified through multi-year reviews of the administrator's

     unit, through strategic planning, and through consultation with faculty

     members in the unit and with other constituencies, as appropriate.

     c. Annual Assessment Procedure. Each evaluator shall conduct an

     annual assessment of each administrator's progress in achieving goals

     established for the year. In assessing progress, each evaluator should

    obtain the views of each administrator as to the progress made on each

     goal. The evaluator should discuss with the administrator his or her

     progress and the evaluator's assessment of the administrator's

     achievements, and will provide a brief written summary of the results.

     The administrator has the right to offer a written response to the

     review.

     d. Public Input. Faculty, students, staff, and other administrators

     should be made aware (for example, through fyi) of the annual review

     processes and should be advised how to contribute their views to

     appropriate evaluators. Systematic interviewing or surveying,

     characteristic of the multi-year reviews, need not be a part of an

     annual review, except as an evaluator may deem it necessary. An

     evaluator who receives comments relevant to an annual review should

     share the substance of such comments with the administrator and make

     some appropriate response. This response may entail further

     investigation of an administrator's performance.

     e. Variations in Timing. Any administrator responsible for 20 or more

     informal evaluations under this section may implement the steps

     contemplated in paragraphs (b) and (c) every 18 months, instead of

     annually. With regard to any particular administrator reviewed on an

     18-month basis, the Provost, in consultation with the reviewing

     administrator, may determine that an annual review is appropriate.

     [top]

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go forward one step to II-29 Hearing Regulations for Alleged Violations of Regents Rules

Or return to the Operations Manual Table of Contents, Index, or Search

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page last updated January 2003 by Office of the Vice President for Finance and University Services