Chair Evaluation Committee
The purpose of this form is to solicit your anonymous and thoughtful input in regard to the recommendations of the Chair Evaluation Committee.
Thank you.
1.
Please provide your input in the box below (Click here to view the recommendations):
| # |
Response |
| 1 |
Great work on the chair evaluation committee!
My only suggestion would be to have a page limit,
5 pages? We don’t want this to be a large burden
on the chairs and dean. Perhaps even further limit
to 2 pages... |
| 1 |
I think the committee has done a good job with
this. How does this relate to the post-tenure
review process? |
| 1 |
I commend the Chair Evaluation Committee on
very thoughtful work, yet I am concerned about
several issues that surround this proposal. 1)
it seems that the faculty annual review does make
allowance for chairs to list their accomplishments
and their departmental-specific workload/so, how
does the former system of evaluation fall short
of giving voice to chairs? In other words, what
is to be gained by creating a separate form of
evaluation? 2) if the primary purpose is to create
a more equitable field of evaluation, then we
must acknowledge that all chairs are not equal
- some individuals chair departments of 70 and
others departments of 5; some have 1 course release
per year and others 4. Wouldn't the inequity simply
be transferred into a new medium? 3) this process
proposed for change would put us ...substantially...1
foot forward in the direction of being administrators
who happen to teach instead of faculty who happen
to administrate as part of their duties. 4) How
would this process affect chairs who are associate
professors and will need to present adequate evidence
of professional growth and development in order
to be promoted? Related to this, how does this
affect individuals in departments who have a Rotating
Chair instead of a permanent one? 5) Many of the
items listed as "evidentiary sources"
for the chair are submitted now as part of the
departmental annual report - are these items to
be counted as part of the chair's accomplishments
or as part of the whole department's accomplishments?
It worries me that as Chair I would be in a positon
to claim all departmental advance under my administration
as belonging to me. 6) Lastly, the suggestions
for Portfolio - including the dozens of pages
cited for Angela Lumpkin's website - appear to
be for professional administrators (12-month employees)
and appear to constitute what many of us would
have documented for tenure or promotion, not annual
review. In effect, the creation of a portfolio
in such depth, I feel, could be time better used
to seek a publication or write a grant. |
| 1 |
Maybe I haven't given enough thought yet To
your committee's recommendations, but my feeling
is that (although much of it is optional) we each
could easily Spend 2 weeks of our time each year,
Trying to innclude all these pieces of evidence,
some of which would be in the form of long narratives.
It seems to me a list of Department accomplishments
for the year (brag sheet of what was accomplished
that year - in bullet form), along with a list
of the chairs' individual accomplishments (teaching,research,service
- just as regular faculty do) for the year would
simplify the job a great deal. Your recommendations,
since we All want to look good relative to other
chairs, seem to me to leave wide open the potential
for tremendously lengthy Documentation, and will
make a fair review by the dean also more difficult.
These are just my feelings. What is being Proposed
here seems more suitable for a once-every 5 year
review, not a once every year review. Just my
opinion. [Plus, People who like to write, as part
of what they do, would have a definite advantage
over concise types:)] |
| 1 |
The recommendation refers to an annual report
by the chairs. Is this the one that we prepare
for the University by May? Does the Dean actually
have time to review each chair every year? In
the past, chairs were evaluated every three years.
What is an administrative portfolio? What should
it contain? It appears that another big job is
being thrown in the lap of the chairs. What purpose
is served by an annual evaluation? Deans and other
administrators are only evaluated at five-year
intervals. If no money is available for raises,
why add another responsibility to the normal workload.
|
|
|