104.01 Administrative Evaluation of Faculty

Board of Regents Policy Manual, section 803.07 requires each institution to establish definite and stated criteria, consistent with Regents' POLICIES and the statutes of the institution, against which the performance of each faculty member will be evaluated. The evaluation shall occur at least annually and shall follow stated procedures as prescribed by each institution. Each institution, as part of its evaluative procedures, will utilize a written system of faculty evaluations by students, with the improvement of teaching effectiveness as the main focus of these student evaluations. (BR Minutes, 1979-80, p.50; 1983-84, p.36)

104.0101 Procedure

The following steps should be made a part of all faculty evaluation systems:

1. The immediate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member's annual written evaluation.
2. The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he or she has been apprised of the content of the annual written evaluation.
3. The faculty member will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation; this response will be attached to the evaluation.
4. The immediate supervisor will acknowledge in writing his or her receipt of this response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member's written response. This acknowledgment will also become a part of the records.

1.  The following shall be used as criteria for distribution of merit pay:
1. Teaching
2. Service to the Institution
3. Academic Achievement and Professional Growth
4. Other
2. Teaching should be given at least 40 percent weight. The other three criteria should be used with no less weight than 10 percent each. The department chair shall apply the weightings uniformly across the department. Members of the department and the dean of the college should be aware well in advance of pay time of the weightings which will be applied for purposes of merit.
3. The department chair should make a pay recommendation to the dean, both in the form of percentage and dollar increase proposed. The department chair may refer to promotion and tenure material in this Handbook for guidance or may use whatever other bases he or she deems appropriate. But these bases should be known to the faculty.

After consultation with the dean, the department chair will notify faculty as to the salary increase being recommended from the dean's office to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The department chair will justify the recommendation for each faculty member in writing.

104.0201

Beyond annual administrative review (see Section 104.01) , Board of Regents Policy Manual, section 803.08 requires that every institution establish procedures to formally evaluate tenured faculty each five years, to provide recommendations recognizing and supporting effective performance, and to provide development strategies for areas of inadequate performance. The purpose of the post-tenure review "will be to examine, recognize and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members. . . focus on identifying opportunities for faculty that will enable them to reach their full potential in service to their institutions. . . and to ensure that their performance meets the expectations and needs of the institution. . ." (Board of Regents, April 10, 1996)

104.0202 General Policy Statement

The purpose of post-tenure review at the University of West Georgia is to review faculty every five years after the award of tenure and to yield accurate and useful information which will support high achievement among faculty and promote their continued professional development. Directed toward career development, this review is designed to provide a longer term perspective than is usually provided by the annual review. Post-tenure review provides both retrospective and prospective reviews of performance, taking into account that a faculty member probably will have different emphases at different points in his or her career. It is to be directed toward career development and to provide the perspective of multiple years of accomplishments and plans for development.

Each unit shall ensure that the criteria governing this review do not infringe on the academic freedom of faculty, including the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry. The review shall be carried out free of bias or prejudice by factors such as race, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, or veteran status.

Post-tenure review shall be faculty-driven and flexible enough to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities and professional interests that reflect the mission of the University of West Georgia. The essential elements of such a peer-review process are that it shall take into account one's past progress and anticipated future as scholar, teacher, and colleague; provide a measure of accountability with regard to the performance of tenured faculty which goes beyond the annual review; be developmental in nature; assist faculty to continue to grow professionally; provide a structure by which this periodic evaluation it to take place; provide feedback and remediation recommendations for faculty found deficient in any area; allow faculty who were tenured prior to the institution of this review to select variable career paths or emphases under which they will be evaluated; provide faculty with timely and formal notification of any perceived deficiencies; and establish an appeal route for faculty who are aggrieved by either the substantive or procedural components of the review or the remediative process.

By thirty (30) days prior to the end of each Spring term, applicable departmental and/or college or library policies and procedures must be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to assure compliance with university guidelines.

104.0203 General Implementation Procedures
All tenured faculty members for whom five or more years have passed since their last career review decision (tenure and/or promotion), must undergo post-tenure review. A faculty member on a leave of absence any time during the five year review period may delay the post-tenure review for up to one year.

1. Notification of faculty
By thirty (30) days prior to the end of each Spring term, the VPAA will provide to each college and the library a list of faculty scheduled for post-tenure review during the subsequent academic year. College deans and the Library Director, or their designees, will be responsible for notifying faculty of pending review, as well as a schedule for completion of such reviews.
2. Timetable for review.
Each year the post-tenure reviews will be completed before the end of the Fall term.

Each unit shall ensure that the criteria governing post-tenure review do not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty.

In the case of tenured faculty serving in administrative capacities, allowances must be made for the responsibilities these individuals carry in the area of service to the institution.

104.0205 Documentation Required
Faculty undergoing post-tenure review must submit the following documentation to the Post-Tenure Advisory Committee:

1. Current curriculum vitae with accomplishments of the years under consideration highlighted.
2. Copies of annual performance reviews of the faculty member by his or her department chair or unit supervisor for the years under consideration.
3. Copies of the documentation prepared and submitted for consideration by the faculty member at the time of each of these annual reviews.
4. A statement prepared by the faculty member, not to exceed two pages in length, detailing his or her accomplishments and goals for the period under review and projected goals for the next  five-year period.
5. Measures of teaching effectiveness including, but not limited, to a combination of written student evaluations and peer evaluations.
6. Any additional documentation specified by unit, departmental or institutional policy

Once submitted for consideration, the faculty member shall have supervised access at any time to his or her review file. The faculty member shall also have the right to add material to this file, including statements and additional documents, at any time during the review process.

104.0206 Formation and Operation of Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee

1. This review shall be conducted by faculty peers with tenure who are able to render a fair and objective assessment of the person being reviewed. If a significant conflict of interest exists, no person with such a conflict may participate in post-tenure review recommendations, advisement of candidates, and/or preparation of materials. All personal and professional conflicts of interest must be revealed and reviewed. Such conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, personal and professional interactions and relationships that would preclude dispassionate and disinterested recommendations and correct, complete, and unbiased participation in these matters. Spouses, immediate family members, and colleagues with an intimate personal relationship with the candidate are explicitly prohibited from participation. Each college and/or the library, as well as the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review, shall establish a process for removing a faculty member from the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee(s) and shall establish criteria for assessing the credibility of claims of bias if a person being reviewed has reason to believe that another individual could not judge his or her case fairly.
2. When post-tenure review was first initiated in 1997, the College of Arts and Sciences elected to carry out this review at the department level, while the Colleges of Business and Education and the Library elected for a college review. This determination may be amended by a secret ballot vote of the respective faculties.
3. A Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee or Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committees consisting of at least three tenured faculty colleagues, selected by whatever means the faculty members so determine, shall be established annually at the department, unit and/or college level(s) in accordance with these votes.
4. Even if the faculty of a given unit (college or library) decides that department chairs or unit supervisors can serve on Post-Tenure Review Advisory committees (for example, at the University-wide Appeals Committee advisory level), under no circumstances shall anyone who serves in a supervisory role to the individual being reviewed be permitted to serve on a Post-Tenure Review Advisory committee reviewing that individual.
5. In each college and in the library, the dean or director will be responsible for convening the initial meeting of the elected committee or committees. At the initial meeting, the members of the committee shall select one of its faculty members as chair. The chair will be a voting member of the committee.
6. Each committee shall meet at the call of its committee chair. At the initial meeting the committee chair shall review the applicable departmental, college, unit, and university policies and procedures governing post-tenure review so that committee members will be aware of these before any review process begins.
7. The documentation submitted by each faculty member shall be reviewed by committee members prior to committee meetings.
8. The merits of each faculty member undergoing post-tenure review will be discussed to the extent desired by a simple majority of committee members. In the event of disagreement about the value of scholarly performance, job performance, or service, the review may include the evaluations of external reviewers to provide a due process protection that ensures an unbiased appraisal. This panel of external reviewers will be generated by the faculty member under review and appropriate department chair or unit supervisor and include a minimum of three professors knowledgeable of the faculty member's field of expertise from both on and off campus. The panel will serve to ensure that scholarly written work or job performance is being fairly and accurately interpreted. Any department chair or unit supervisor may be called to discuss with the committee the qualifications of a person under review who holds rank in his or her department.
9. Voting on a colleague's status with regard to the post-tenure review shall be by secret ballot. Each faculty member being reviewed shall be evaluated as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory with regard to his or her overall accomplishments; to be adjudged as unsatisfactory faculty under review must receive votes of unsatisfactory from at least sixty percent (60%) of the voting members of the committee.
Any person with an evaluation of unsatisfactory performance will be required to develop a three-year plan to address deficiencies (see section K,2 below).
10. The committee chair, in consultation with members of the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee, shall prepare a written evaluation for each candidate reviewed during post-tenure review. This evaluation must be signed by all members of the committee and must provide specific reasons for conclusions contained within it. It will report the consensus arrived at by the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee with regard to a faculty member's performance; address the faculty member's record of accomplishments and quality of contributions with regard to teaching, academic achievement, service, professional growth and development; clarify any areas needing improvement; and, where applicable, offer specific suggestions on what will be needed to improve performance. This evaluation must be written as clearly and collegially as possible. In the event that this evaluation differs from annual reviews, this evaluation shall state the exact reason(s) for this judgment.
The chair of the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee shall give each faculty member being reviewed a copy of the committee's evaluation ten (10) working days prior to the deadline for submitting the committee recommendation to the appropriate department chair or unit supervisor; therefore, the person being reviewed has five (5) working days to prepare an appeal for reconsideration by the committee (see paragraph 104.0208, below).
11. Once any appeals to the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee(s) have been heard and acted upon, the committee chair will provide a copy of the committee's final evaluation to the faculty member being reviewed and to the appropriate department chair or unit supervisor. The faculty member, if he or she desires, will have an opportunity to prepare a written response to the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee's evaluation. Such a response shall be received by the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee within five (5) working days after the date the committee's final evaluation is received by the faculty member under review. It will be the responsibility of the appropriate dean or director to preserve the original ballots of rankings and to keep these on file for a period of six (6) years.

A copy of the post-tenure review advisory committee's evaluation and any written response to it by the evaluated faculty member shall then be sent to the administrative office at least one level above the faculty member's administrative unit. The same material shall also be placed in the faculty member's personnel file at the departmental level. The department shall also preserve in the faculty member's personnel file all documents, other than documents like publications that are readily available elsewhere, that played a substantive part in the review.
1. If the review reveals stellar performance, a faculty member shall receive recognition for his or her achievements through institutional policies and procedures already in place for acknowledging and rewarding meritorious achievement (e.g. merit pay, study and research leave opportunities, other opportunities consistent with his or her career goals and objectives and Board of Regents policy).
2. If areas needing improvement have been identified, the department chair and faculty member shall jointly develop a formal plan for faculty development that includes clearly-defined and specific goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable within which goals or outcomes should be accomplished, and an agreed-upon strategy and criteria for monitoring progress. The faculty member's department chair and the appropriate dean or director are jointly responsible for arranging for appropriate funding for the development plan, if required. The department chair or unit supervisor is responsible for forwarding a copy of the faculty development plan resulting from a post-tenure review to the appropriate dean or director by the end of the academic year in which the review was conducted.
1. The faculty member's department chair or unit supervisor is responsible for monitoring the progress of faculty members engaging in a faculty development plan to remedy deficiencies identified in a post-tenure review. A progress report, which will be included in the annual review, will be forwarded each year to the appropriate dean or director. When the objectives of the faculty development plan designed to deal with specified deficiencies have been met as determined by the department chair or unit supervisor, the department chair or unit supervisor shall make a final report to the appropriate dean or director.
2. It is the responsibility of the department chair or unit supervisor to determine, after a period of three years from the academic term in which the development plan is agreed upon, whether or not a faculty member whose performance was deemed unsatisfactory in the post-tenure review has been successful in remedying deficiencies identified in the review. He or she will report that finding to the appropriate dean or director. The university will then proceed in accordance with options available as specified by University and Board of Regents policy and procedures.

When a department chair or unit supervisor is under consideration for post-tenure review, the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee shall review the faculty member's file and make, in writing, a satisfactory or unsatisfactory evaluation to the appropriate dean or director. In the event deficiencies are noted which require the development of a three-year plan, the appropriate dean or director will be responsible for developing the plan for faculty development and monitoring the progress of the faculty member engaged in this plan with the assistance of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Administrators other than department chairs or unit supervisors who are tenured will not undergo post-tenure review unless or until they return to a faculty role with little or no administrative responsibilities. Any administrator returning to a faculty role with little or no administrative responsibilities is to be reviewed five years after returning and reviews shall continue at five-year intervals unless interrupted by a further review for promotion.  In the post-tenure review of a department chair or other faculty member with an administrative assignment, provision must be made for his or her activities in that area. Those with administrative responsibilities will still be subject to policy and procedures regarding administrative evaluation (see, for example, Sections 104.03 and 104.04).

104.0208 Appeal for Reconsideration

The first appeal shall be directed to the committee(s) which originally conducted the faculty member's post-tenure review. Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of an appeal, the committee(s) shall carefully re-evaluate the faculty member's file in light of the written appeal. This evaluation shall be made in accordance with the procedure established for initial consideration and shall replace this party's previous evaluation of the faculty member. If, upon re-examination of the case, the original review Committee(s) see(s) no reason to alter its/their recommendation(s), the faculty member may appeal within thirty (30) working days to the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review.

By March 1st of each year, the Vice President of Academic Affairs will notify in writing the deans of the College of Arts & Sciences, the College of Business, and the College of Education, and the Director of the Library that nominees must be solicited from among the tenured faculty in each of these units and that a university-wide election must take place by the end of the Spring term to select tenured faculty from each unit to constitute a University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review to hear any post-tenure review appeals. Fourteen duly elected tenured faculty members, apportioned as follows, will constitute the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review:
 
 

College of  Arts and Sciences:	6
College of Business:	3
College of Education:	4
Ingram Library:	1

The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be responsible for calling the initial meeting of this committee. At the initial meeting, the members of the committee shall elect one of its faculty members as chair, who will be a voting member of the committee.

The committee shall meet at the call of its committee chair. The committee chair shall review the applicable departmental, college, library and university policies and procedures governing post-tenure review so that committee members will be aware of these before any review process begins.

Any faculty member appealing for reconsideration shall state in writing the grounds for his or her request and shall include in this appeal such additional material as is pertinent.

The documentation submitted by each faculty member, including that regarding the grounds for his or her appeal, shall be reviewed by committee members prior to committee meetings.

Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of an appeal, the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review shall carefully evaluate the faculty member's file in light of the written appeal. This evaluation shall be made in accordance with the procedure established for initial consideration (e.g., voting on a colleague's status with regard to the post-tenure review shall be by secret ballot; each faculty member being reviewed shall be evaluated as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory with regard to his or her overall accomplishments; to be adjudged as unsatisfactory, faculty under review must receive votes of unsatisfactory from at least sixty percent (60%) of the voting members of the committee). The committee chair, in consultation with the other members of the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review shall prepare a written evaluation for each faculty member reviewed on appeal during post-tenure review. This evaluation must be signed by all members of the committee and must provide specific reasons for conclusions contained within it. It should report the recommendation arrived at by the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review with regard to a faculty member's performance; address the faculty member's record of accomplishments and quality of contributions with regard to teaching, academic achievement, service and professional growth and development; clarify any areas needing improvement; and, where applicable, offer specific suggestions on what will be needed to improve performance. This evaluation must be written as clearly and collegially as possible. This evaluation shall take precedence over the previous evaluation of the faculty member. The evaluation of this committee shall be forwarded to the faculty member under review, the appropriate department chair or unit supervisor, the appropriate Dean or Director, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

104.0209 Right to Redress

( See Policies and Procedures Manual, Article V, Section 3 )

104.0210 Reconsideration Clause

At the end of the three-year phase-in period, this policy and these procedures must be reviewed and reconsidered by the Faculty and Administrative Staff Personnel Committee and the Faculty Senate to determine its effectiveness. Modifications will be considered prior to the implementation of post-tenure reviews in Academic Year 2000-2001.

To provide the faculty and administration with information on the performance of departmental administrative personnel, a periodic evaluation is established.

An evaluation of the department chair shall be conducted by the department at least once every three years (except that new department chairs shall not be evaluated their first year in office).  The form of evaluation (written, oral, group, etc.) and the procedure to be used shall be determined by the departmental members, reviewed by the department chair, and approved by the dean.  The form and procedure shall meet the following guidelines:

1. All evaluators will feel free to be candid without fear of repercussion.
2. The faculty of that department, the department chair and the dean will be made privy to the information, and these parties will not divulge the contents except at the discretion of the dean.
3. The dean will keep the results of the last three evaluations of a particular department chair.

CODE
 

0-Do Not Know

1-Low Score

2-Below Average Score

3-Average

4-Above Average Score

5-High Score

Evaluate the person named above in terms of the degree to which he or she:

SCALE I. COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

_____ N.A.
 

_____ 1.	Communicates with you in a timely and responsive manner	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 2.	Has sufficient contact with you	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 3.	Is duly sensitive to your needs for information	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 4.	Writes letters and makes statements that seldom need clarification	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 5.	Conveys a sense of caring and concern for the needs and problems of students, faculty and associates.	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 6.	Displays a sensitivity to the feelings of students, faculty and associates.	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 7.	Conducts effective conferences and interviews.	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 8.	Displays the ability to give constructive criticism in a positive manner	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 9.	Has good rapport with students, faculty and associates	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 10.	Works well with students, faculty and associates to achieve common goals	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____ 11.	Needs to improve communication skills	Yes_______ No_______

If yes, explain in what way(s)____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________
 

0-Do Not Know

1-Low Score

2-Below Average Score

3-Average

4-Above Average Score

5-High Score

SCALE II. PLANNING, OPERATIONS, AND ACTION

_____N.A.
 

_____12.	Plans ahead for those activities under his or her jurisdiction	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____13.	Keeps goals up-to-date and clearly stated	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____14.	Makes time for planning by delegating routine work	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____15.	Initiates action towards defined goals	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____16.	Perseveres in the face of frustrations and obstacles to accomplish difficult goals	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____17.	Completes detailed and routine tasks effectively	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____18.	Establishes uniform procedures where appropriate	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____19.	Encourages initiative and performance by delegating tasks effectively to others	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____20.	Can anticipate potential problems which may develop when plans do not work out in practice	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____21.	Shows resourcefulness and imagination in finding answers to problems	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Other:_____________________________________________________________	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____22.	Needs to improve in planning, operations and action	Yes_____No_____

If yes, explain in what way(s):____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SCALE III. DECISION MAKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

_____N.A.
 

_____23.	Makes sound and timely decisions	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____24.	Gathers pertinent facts before acting	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____25.	Applies policy consistently and fairly	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____26.	Consults with others on important decisions	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____27.	Is skilled in participatory decision making	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____28.	Approaches problem solving on a systematic basis	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____29.	Is able to cope with unanticipated events	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____30.	Recognizes and utilizes the special talents of others as an aid to solving problems	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____31.	Understands the college well enough to refer matters to the proper offices for effective action	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____32.	Acts with deliberateness and common sense under stress	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Other:________________________________________________________	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____33.	Needs to improve decision-making and problem-solving skills	Yes_____No_____

If yes, explain in what way(s):____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
 

0-Do Not Know

1-Low Score

2-Below Average Score

3-Average

4-Above Average Score

5-High Score

SCALE IV. PERSONAL SKILLS AND HUMAN RELATIONS

_____N.A.
 

_____34.	Establishes rapport easily and is approachable for counsel	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____35.	Is receptive to constructive suggestions for changes	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____36.	Gives credit to others for their contributions	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____37.	Fosters morale and instills co-workers with a sense of enthusiasm, purpose and direction	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____38.	Works well with committees	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____39.	Inspires confidence in his or her personal integrity and professionalism	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____40.	Is fair and impartial in rendering decisions affecting students, faculty and associates	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____41.	Is skilled in those specialties demanded by his or her assignment	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____42.	Demonstrates a clear understanding of the role and scope of his or her assignments and authority	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____43.	Compared with other administrators and professionals at WGC, is (1) one of the worst, (2) below average, (3) average, (4) above average, (5) one of the best	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Other:_____________________________________________________________	0 1 2 3 4 5
_____44.	Needs to improve personal and human relations skills	Yes_____No_____

If yes, explain in what way(s):___________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

104.04 Faculty Evaluation of Administrative Deans/Directors

To provide the faculty and administration with information on the performance of administrative deans and directors, a periodic evaluation is established.

An evaluation of such deans and directors shall be conducted no less often than every six years and no more often than every four years.
The Faculty Advisory committee to the dean or the director, or a representative group of faculty selected by whatever means the faculty in a given school or the library shall determine shall be responsible for the evaluation of the dean or director.  This committee shall appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct this evaluation.  The ad hoc committee shall be composed of a representative group of faculty and shall include at least one department chair.  The ad hoc committee shall decide the specific format for the evaluation and shall take responsibility for forwarding the results of this evaluation to faculty in a given school or the library, to the dean or director being evaluated, and to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.  A suggested personnel evaluation instrument which is appropriate for the evaluation of deans, directors and other professional and administrative personnel is included on the following pages.

The purpose of this evaluation procedure is to develop the highest level of administrative leadership in an academic setting which is consistent with individual and institutional goals.  This procedure is designed to foster professional growth and performance of administrators, to improve credibility of the administrative process, and to develop useful information in order to make appropriate personnel decisions.

It should be understood that while evaluation is an ongoing process, a documented record of a person's job performance is important because it is a means of identifying the person's job-related strengths and weaknesses.  It also provides an opportunity for communication between and among associates on job requirements and work expectations.

Finally, a number of the items in the questionnaire quite clearly call for responses that are perceptions of a person's performance that may or may not accord with how and why the person performs or has performed.  The person responding to the questionnaire may not know or be in position to know enough to give an accurate response to a particular item.  It remains the case, however, that perceptions of a person's performance, accurate or not, affect how well that person can accomplish the tasks he or she has been assigned, and, therefore, perceptions of performances remain an important part of an overall evaluation process.

Each administrator reporting to the Vice President for Academic Affairs is to provide a description of the procedures to be used in that administrative unit for the periodic review of his or her administrative performance. Although no standard form or format is prescribed, the following characteristics of the overall system will be common to all units.

1. Interval of Evaluation: at least once every three (3) years, preferably on the anniversary date, once established.
2. Purpose and Objectives: the purpose is to improve the effectiveness of the unit administered, including its contribution to the effectiveness of other units and the institution as a whole. The overall objectives are:
1. To review goals and accomplishments of the administrator and unit supervised, especially as these relate to the continuing mission and strategic goals of the institution.
2. To review the administrator's job description and responsibilities, as well as the organization of the unit.
3. To provide for communication with and feedback from those supervised, those served, and those engaged in parallel or peer efforts.
4. To review the level of resources and other support provided to the administrator and unit.
5. To discuss concerns and opportunities and to plan for any changes that seem warranted or desirable.
3. Components of Evaluation:
1. Feedback. Each administrator is to determine how feedback is to be obtained. The means used should provide for communication with at least a representative sampling of those persons supervised, those served, and those occupying similar positions. Faculty members and students, whenever possible, should be included. If surveys are used, consideration should be given to the usual questions of length, targeted audience, credibility, labor involved, etc.
2. Self report. Before a scheduled conference with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, each administrator should provide to him or her a brief written report:
1. Describing how you went about obtaining feedback;
2. Listing initiatives, achievements, and professional activities of a major sort over the past year or evaluation period;
3. Briefly commenting on what seems to be going well and not so well and on any problems or concerns about the support you and your unit receive;
4. Indicating any changes that seem warranted in the job description.
The report can be informal and should not be long or elaborate.
3. Conference with the V.P. for Academic Affairs: The conference will be an occasion to discuss the feedback received, the administrator's own views, the Vice President for Academic Affairs' views, plans, and support for those.
4. Criteria
1. Leadership and management of unit with regard to the quality, cost, credibility, and effectiveness of its efforts
2. Contribution to the effectiveness of other units and the institution
3. Initiative and follow through
4. Other criteria as considered important by the administrator.