APPENDIX A
 
POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN THE
SELECTION OF DEANS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS
AND THE EVALUATION OF THEIR LEADERSHIP
 
Note: The program reviews described in this appendix are special reviews on which the faculty votes during the leadership evaluation of a dean or department chair. This appendix does not address the policies and procedures for the University’s long-standing program reviews for ACHE and SACS. For information on those review procedures, contact the Office for Academic Affairs.

 
A. Basic Principles

Academic excellence is essential to the educational mission of The University of Alabama. Such excellence is achieved in an environment of mutual confidence, collegial participation, effective leadership, and strong academic programs. To foster that environment, it is University policy that the faculty* are expected to participate in the selection of deans and departmental chairpersons and that the advice of the faculty shall be actively and systematically sought concerning possible improvements in academic programs and in administrative leadership of academic divisions and departments.

The process by which the views of the faculty shall be sought is based on six understandings:

1. Final authority over the selection and retention of deans and other academic administrators rests with the President but primary authority for the selection and retention of associate deans, assistant deans, and departmental chairpersons rests with the academic dean.

2. Normally, no person shall be appointed as a dean or a departmental chair who has not received a positive tenure recommendation from the relevant academic departmental tenure committee or, where the smallest relevant academic unit is the division, from the divisional tenure committee, of The University of Alabama.

3. The evaluation and advice of the faculty shall be systematically obtained and considered prior to the appointment of deans and chairpersons.

4. Program direction, program quality, and the performance of deans and departmental chairpersons shall be evaluated periodically and an important consideration in this process shall be the evaluations made by the faculty.

5. It is the responsibility of the faculty to participate in reviews of programs and leadership and to provide reasons for their recommendations which can be considered by the administration when making decisions. Faculty members who fail to participate fully in the leadership evaluation process, either by making no recommendation or failing to give reasons for a recommendation, impair the administration's ability to make an appropriate decision.

6. Faculty participation in the evaluation of administrative performance shall be accomplished by providing the opportunity for formal evaluations at five-year intervals except as hereinafter provided.

7. Program direction and program quality shall be considered by higher administrators when considering faculty evaluation of the leadership of academic administrators. Normally, the nature and timing of academic program reviews shall be left to the discretion of the higher administrators, but these reviews must be reasonably extensive and current and must involve opportunities for faculty members to express their views about the program. There shall be a new program review by the faculty, concurrent with the leadership evaluation, if the higher administrators decide that a program review is needed or if the faculty, through a timely petition signed by at least 25 percent of the total faculty or by a timely vote supported by at least one-third of the total faculty, requests that a program review be conducted.

 In the following policies and procedures governing the selection and evaluation of deans** and departmental chairpersons, there exists an intended degree of latitude and procedural flexibility to accommodate differences and preferences among academic divisions and departments. Each academic division and each department may adopt more specific formal procedures provided that these procedures are consistent with the University policies and guidelines stated herein and provided that they are approved by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or the academic dean, as may be appropriate.
 


*Throughout this document, "faculty" shall be understood to consist of all persons who have a tenured or tenure-track appointment in the appropriate academic unit of the University; the status of exceptional classes, such as members of the full-time clinical faculty of the College of Community Health Sciences or full-time temporary instructors, will be decided by the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the unit.

**Certain positions which carry the title of dean do not have faculty constituencies which are limited to a single division, such as Dean of the Graduate School, Dean of the Library, or Dean of Continuing Studies.  For these positions, it is necessary that the formal review process include campus-wide faculty participation and that the procedures stated herein be modified to accommodate such participation.  Such modifications will be developed on a case-by-case basis by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs or other appropriate administrative officer, in consultation with appropriate faculty and administrative bodies including the Council of Deans and the Steering Committee of the Faculty Senate.  These modified procedures shall be implemented upon approval by the President.


 

B. Policies and Guidelines for Selecting Deans

The President of The University of Alabama, acting through authority granted by the Board of Trustees, appoints deans. The process of searching for and appointing a dean will conform to the Affirmative Action Plan of the University and all prevailing federal and state regulatory requirements. In addition, appointments will be made only after considering (1) the evaluations and advice of the faculty of the academic division and (2) the advice of a search committee, as described below:

1. When a vacancy occurs, the President or a designated representative shall meet with the divisional faculty before deciding on the nature of the search and the size and composition of a representative search committee. Faculty members elected from the academic division will constitute a majority of the search committee; secret ballot election by the divisional faculty, either acting as a whole or by departments according to procedures approved by the divisional faculty, shall govern the elected faculty membership on the search committee. Other members of the search committee will be appointed by the President. Usually, the President will appoint a staff member from the Office for Academic Affairs to serve as a non-voting member on the search committee and to provide liaison and logistical support. Giving due regard to advice and concerns expressed by the faculty, the President will designate one of the elected faculty members to chair the search committee.

2. The search committee, working in cooperation with the President and the Office for Academic Affairs and with appropriate participation from constituent groups, shall establish selection criteria, announce and advertise the position in a manner appropriate to the nature of the search, and coordinate the review and evaluation of candidates for the position. Throughout the search process, the committee shall solicit, encourage, and provide for faculty participation and the participation of other constituent groups. Faculty members should have ample opportunity to review the credentials of qualified candidates, except that the search committee may protect the identity of candidates who request confidentiality during the initial screening process. On the basis of faculty evaluations and its own judgment, the search committee will reduce the list of candidates to those deemed to be best qualified for the position. The committee and the President will select those to be interviewed from this reduced list. Interviews scheduled should allow for discussions with the President, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, deans, chairpersons, search committee members, faculty, and, where appropriate to the nature of the search, with students, alumni, and others.

Following these interviews, and other information gathering procedures appropriate to the nature of the search, every reasonable effort should be made to obtain the views of the divisional faculty and appropriately interested constituent groups. The advice of the divisional faculty may be determined by individual written evaluations, by an expression of faculty sentiment at a called faculty meeting, or by such other means as the search committee may consider appropriate. General support of the divisional faculty normally will be necessary for further consideration of a candidate.

3. The search committee shall submit to the President, through the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, a summary of evaluations and advice received from the divisional faculty on each person interviewed and its own advice. In the event the President does not secure the appointment of a dean from the list of those candidates who have general faculty support, the search process normally shall be continued until a dean acceptable to the President and the faculty is successfully recruited. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the President shall select a dean from those candidates who have general faculty support. If it should become necessary to reopen the search, the President and the search committee may confer to establish further direction; if it appears desirable, a new search committee may be formed.

4. The President will make interim or acting appointments when necessary; such appointments will be made only after considering any advice and concerns stated by the faculty. The President, as soon as is practicable, will organize a formal search to replace the interim or acting dean. Interim or acting appointees who have served for more than one year shall be subject to review and the faculty's advice as to continuation upon a written petition therefor to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs by at least 25 percent of the total divisional faculty or upon a vote of one-third or more of the total divisional faculty.

  C. Policies and Guidelines for Leadership Evaluation of Deans and Concurrent Review of Divisional Programs

It is the policy of  The University of Alabama that faculty members in each academic division shall have periodic opportunities to evaluate the leadership of their division and that the views of the faculty concerned shall be an important component of any personnel decision by the President resulting from the leadership evaluation and program reviews. The Office for Academic Affairs will establish a schedule for the leadership evaluations of each academic division.  A leadership evaluation shall be scheduled in each academic division at least once every five years except that the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs may vary the schedule by as much as one year if a change in the leadership of a division occurs or is anticipated or if other circumstances arise in which it becomes desirable to do so.

1. Early in the fall or spring semester in which a division's leadership evaluation is scheduled, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shall circulate a mail ballot to the divisional faculty posing two questions:
  (a) Is it desirable to conduct an evaluation of the division's leadership?

(b) Is it desirable to conduct a concurrent review of the direction and quality of divisional programs? (Such a review of programs is in addition to the regularly scheduled review of academic programs conducted by the Office for Academic Affairs for the Alabama Commission on Higher Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.)
 

 The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, after receiving the results of this vote, shall meet with the divisional faculty to consider whether a leadership evaluation and/or a program review is to be conducted and, if there is to be an evaluation or review, to discuss the size and composition of the appropriate committee.

2. A leadership evaluation is necessary if:

(a) the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs states, during his or her meeting with the divisional faculty, that a leadership evaluation will be conducted; or

(b) at least 25 percent of the total divisional faculty indicated on the mail ballot that a leadership evaluation  is desirable; or

(c) a resolution requesting a leadership evaluation receives the support of at least one-third of the total divisional faculty during the meeting of the divisional faculty and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 

 If a leadership evaluation has not already been decided upon under provisions a) or b), then the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, during his or her meeting with the divisional faculty, will ask that the resolution described in c) be brought forward for a vote.

3. A program review of a division’s programs concurrent with a dean’s leadership evaluation is necessary if:
 

(a) the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs states, during his or her meeting with the divisional faculty, that a program review will be conducted; or

(b) at least 25 percent of the total divisional faculty indicated on the mail ballot that a program review was is desirable; or

(c) a resolution requesting a program review receives the support of at least one-third of the total divisional faculty during the meeting of the divisional faculty and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 

 If, as part of the divisional leadership evaluation, a program review has not already been decided upon under provisions a) or b), then the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, during his or her meeting with the divisional faculty, will ask that the resolution described in (c) be brought forward for a vote.

4. A single committee will be selected to conduct the leadership evaluation and/or program review if either or both is necessary. The size and composition of this Committee, or Review Committee, or Evaluation/Review Committee will be decided by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs except that faculty members elected by the divisional faculty will constitute a majority of the Committee and, in the event the Committee consists of nine or more persons, elected faculty members will constitute at least two-thirds of the Committee. Other members of the Committee will be appointed by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs; these may include persons other than divisional faculty. Secret ballot election by the divisional faculty, either acting as a whole or by departments according to procedures approved by the divisional faculty, shall govern the elected faculty membership on the Committee. One of the elected faculty members shall be designated by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs to serve as chairperson.

 D. Divisional Leadership Evaluations

The faculty of each division is encouraged to adopt an evaluation plan and procedure, to be revised as necessary, which future Committees can consider when deciding how to conduct their evaluations; any such plan should include suggested evaluation criteria.

Evaluation by Faculty. The following policies and guidelines for obtaining the divisional faculty's advice on the division's leadership are to be employed:

1. a meeting of the Dean with the divisional faculty, the Committee, and appropriate members of the central administration, including the President if he or she desires, at which the Dean shall present a "state of the college" report; this report may, at the Dean's discretion, include presentations by members of the Dean's staff and faculty members, and shall include whatever divisional data and program information the Dean or the Committee considers pertinent to the evaluation process.

2. an opportunity, no more than six weeks after the election of faculty members on the Committee, for each faculty member to evaluate from a divisional perspective (a) the organization and management of affairs within the division, and (b) any other areas of concern. Faculty members shall have a clear opportunity to respond to any question by stating that they have little or no basis for judgment.

3. an opportunity for each faculty member to submit an anonymous written statement of reasons for a recommendation that the divisional leadership be continued or changed. Faculty members are expected to state any reasons they have for believing that the dean has or has not helped the college make progress in meeting its mission and goals. The procedure by which this opportunity for written statements is provided should establish clearly (a) that participation is expected and (b) that recommendations will be processed in a manner designed to derive an accurate reflection of the faculty's advice.

 The evaluation and advice provided by the divisional faculty shall be collected by the Committee and held in the strictest confidence by each member of the Committee. The Committee shall develop a summary* of the faculty's evaluations and recommendations, together with the supporting justification which was provided. The summary of recommendations shall include the number of faculty members who made no recommendation, the number who gave no reasons but recommended reappointment or non-reappointment of the Dean, a summary of the reasons given for recommending reappointment or non-reappointment, and any other information contained in the recommendations from the faculty which will help the administration to understand the nature and prevalence of faculty views concerning the Dean's performance. The Committee shall compile verbatim quotes of the full set of reasons given by the faculty for their recommendations concerning reappointment of the Dean, grouping similar reasons together so that the set of reasons given by an individual cannot be identified; this compilation of verbatim quotes shall be attached to the report forwarded to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President, but shall not be made available to the Dean. The Committee shall meet with the Dean to discuss the preliminary results of the evaluation and shall then decide whether additional information should be sought. The final results of the evaluation, including any advice provided by other constituent groups, shall be transmitted solely to the Dean, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President. With due regard to protecting the confidentiality of the more sensitive results of the evaluation process, the chairperson of the Committee shall make an oral report to the faculty concerning the general results of the evaluation and shall circulate to the faculty such specific results of the evaluation as the Committee, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President may consider appropriate. 

Decision by President. Upon receiving the Committee's report, and after any other evaluations, discussions, and clarifications which the President and/or the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs consider necessary, the President will communicate his or her decision to those concerned, normally no later than one month following submission of the Committee's report. Should the President's decision differ from the weight of faculty opinion and advice, the President or the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs will meet with the divisional faculty to discuss the President's views. Then, if the faculty so chooses, it may transmit through the President's Office to the Chancellor, and through the Chancellor to the Board of Trustees, its concerns regarding the President's decision.

Early Divisional Leadership Evaluations. Upon a written petition to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs requesting an early evaluation, signed by at least 25 percent of the total faculty of the division, or upon a vote of one-third or more of the total divisional faculty requesting an early evaluation, an early evaluation of divisional leadership shall be initiated, except that

(a) only one early evaluation may be called for during the interval between regularly scheduled divisional leadership evaluations; and

(b) if an early evaluation results in the continued appointment of the Dean, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs may schedule the next leadership evaluation to occur as late as five years after that early evaluation. No additional early evaluation can be called for before the date when a leadership evaluation would have occurred had there been no call for an early evaluation.

 Early evaluations shall be conducted in the same way as regularly scheduled evaluations and with the same options for concurrent program reviews. The Committee shall solicit the divisional faculty's evaluation and advice as prescribed above no later than six weeks after the petition is delivered or the vote taken; the President normally will communicate his or her decision to those concerned within one month following the Committee's report. The time for the Committee to complete its activities may, however, be adjusted by the Committee to accommodate those periods of the year during which members are not, or may not be, available to participate in the process, provided that such adjustments in time shall not defeat the purpose or unreasonably impede the progress of the procedures prescribed herein.
 

E. Divisional Program Reviews Concurrent with Divisional Leadership Evaluations

The President and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shall consider any available reviews of program direction and program quality when considering the results of Divisional Leadership Evaluations. External and/or internal reviews (e.g., accreditation reviews; internal reviews of departments for the Alabama Commission on Higher Education), if sufficiently extensive and current, and if they provided adequate opportunities for faculty members to express their views about the program, may supply the information needed. The decision as to whether additional information is needed is a joint responsibility of the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and the faculty. In making such a program review, the Review Committee or Evaluation/Review Committee shall observe the following policies and principles:

1. Program direction and quality may be influenced by many factors other than the quality of divisional leadership. An appropriate distinction should be made between a report on the division’s programs and a report dealing with the dean's leadership of the programs.

2. An important consideration in the review shall be the views of the faculty. Each faculty member shall have an opportunity, no more than six weeks after the election of faculty members on the Committee, to assess from a divisional perspective (a) the direction in which the division is headed and the progress it is making as a whole, (b) the overall quality of the divisional curriculum, (c) the commitment to faculty scholarship and productivity, (d) student quality, (e) financial support and resources available within the division for teaching, research, and service. Faculty members shall have a clear opportunity to respond to any question by stating that they have little or no basis for judgment.

 The assessment and advice provided by the divisional faculty shall be collected by the Committee and held in the strictest confidence by each member of the Committee. The Committee shall develop a summary* of the faculty's assessments, together with the supporting justification which was provided. The Committee shall meet with the Dean to discuss the preliminary results of the review and shall then decide whether additional information should be sought. The final results of the review, including any from other constituent groups, shall be transmitted solely to the Dean, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President. With due regard to protecting the confidentiality of the more sensitive results of the review process, the chairperson of the Committee shall make an oral report to the faculty concerning the general results of the review and shall circulate to the faculty such specific results of the review as the Committee, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President consider appropriate.


*The Committee may group the responses of different categories of faculty participants (based on rank, tenure status, the holding of an administrative appointment, or other appropriate classification) and may report the responses by such established categories, provided that such reporting does not identify any individual's response.  The Committee must take whatever precautions are necessary to protect fully the anonymity and confidentiality of each individual faculty member's response.  In addition, the Committee must establish a procedure to ensure that the faculty responses to this part of the  review are used only for the purpose prescribed herein.

 

F. Policies and Guidelines for Selecting Departmental Chairpersons

Departmental chairpersons* are appointed by the Dean of the academic division, subject to review and final approval by the Office for Academic Affairs and the President. The process of searching for and appointing departmental chairpersons will conform to the Affirmative Action Plan of the University and all prevailing federal and state regulatory requirements. In addition, appointments will be made only after considering (1) the evaluations and advice of the faculty of the academic unit and (2) the advice of a search committee, as described below:

1. When a vacancy occurs, the Dean of the academic division shall meet with the departmental faculty before deciding on the nature of the search and the size and composition of a representative search committee; committees of the whole may be appropriate in small academic units. Faculty members elected from the department** will constitute a majority of the search committee; secret ballot election by the departmental faculty shall govern the elected faculty membership on the search committee. Other members of the search committee will be appointed by the Dean. Usually, the Dean or a person from the Dean's office will serve as a non-voting member on the search committee to provide liaison and logistical support. Giving due regard to the advice and concerns expressed by the faculty, the Dean will designate one of the elected faculty members to chair the search committee.

2. The search committee, working in cooperation with the Dean and with appropriate participation from constituent groups, shall establish selection criteria, announce and advertise the position in a manner appropriate to the nature of the search, and coordinate the review and evaluation of candidates for the position. Throughout the search process, the committee shall solicit, encourage, and provide for faculty participation, and the participation of other constituent groups. Faculty members should have ample opportunity to review the credentials of qualified candidates except that the search committee may protect the identity of candidates who request confidentiality during the initial screening process. On the basis of faculty evaluations and its own judgment, the search committee will reduce the list of candidates to those deemed to be best qualified for the position. The committee and the Dean will select those to be interviewed from this reduced list. Interview schedules of candidates should allow for discussions with the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, the search committee members, individual faculty, and, where appropriate to the nature of the search, students, and others. Following these interviews, and other information gathering procedures appropriate to the nature of the search, every reasonable effort should be made to obtain the views of the departmental faculty and appropriately interested constituent groups. The advice of the faculty may be determined by individual written evaluations, or by expression of faculty sentiment at a called faculty meeting, or by such other means as the search committee may consider appropriate. General support of the departmental faculty normally will be necessary for further consideration of a candidate.

3 The search committee shall submit to the Dean a summary of the evaluations and advice received from the departmental faculty on each final candidate or person interviewed and also its own advice. In the event the Dean does not secure the appointment of a chairperson from the list of candidates who have general faculty support, the search process normally shall be continued until a chairperson acceptable to the Dean and the faculty is successfully recruited. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the Dean shall select a chairperson from those candidates who have general faculty support. If it should become necessary to reopen the search, the Dean and the search committee should confer to establish further direction; if it appears desirable, a new search committee may be formed.

4. The Dean will make interim or acting appointments when necessary; such appointments will be made only after considering any advice and concerns stated by the faculty. The Dean, as soon as practicable, will organize a formal search to replace the interim or acting chairperson. Acting or interim appointees who have served for more than one year shall be subject to review and the faculty's advice as to continuation upon a written petition therefor to the Dean by at least 25 percent of the total departmental faculty or upon a vote of one-third or more of the total departmental faculty.
 
*The term departmental chairperson is defined and used throughout to mean the administrator of an academic unit within a division who reports directly to the Dean of the division; the term includes department heads, area heads or chairpersons, program heads or chairpersons, directors of schools within a college, and other such administrators of academic units.  A similar interpretation should be placed on the use of the term department.

**The faculty of small departments may choose to elect additional faculty members from the division.

G. Policies and Guidelines for Leadership Evaluation of Chairpersons and Concurrent Review of Departmental Programs

It is the policy of The University of Alabama that faculty members in each academic department shall have periodic opportunities to participate in evaluation of the leadership and the programs of their department and that the views of the faculty concerned shall be an important component of any personnel decision by the Dean resulting from the leadership evaluation. The Dean, in consultation with the Office for Academic Affairs, will establish a schedule for the leadership evaluations of each department within the division. A leadership evaluation shall be scheduled in each academic department at least once every five years except that the Dean, in consultation with the Office for Academic Affairs, may vary the schedule by as much as one year if a change in the leadership of a department occurs or is anticipated or if other circumstances arise in which it becomes desirable to do so.

1. Early in the fall or spring semester in which a department's leadership evaluation is scheduled, the Dean shall circulate a mail ballot to the divisional faculty posing two questions:
  (a) Is it desirable to conduct an evaluation of the department's leadership?

(b) Is it desirable to conduct a concurrent review of the direction and quality of the department's programs? (Such a review of programs is in addition to the regularly scheduled review of academic programs conducted by the Office for Academic Affairs for the Alabama Commission on Higher Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.)
 

 The Dean, after receiving the results of this vote, shall meet with the departmental faculty to consider whether a leadership evaluation and/or a program review is to be conducted and, if there is to be an evaluation or review, to discuss the size and composition of the appropriate committee.
 

2. A leadership evaluation is necessary if:

(a) the Dean states, during his or her meeting with the departmental faculty, that a leadership evaluation will be conducted; or

(b) at least 25 percent of the total departmental faculty indicated on the mail ballot that a leadership evaluation was desirable; or

(c) a resolution requesting a program review receives the support of at least one-third of the total departmental faculty during the meeting of the departmental faculty and the Dean.
 

 If a departmental leadership evaluation has not already been decided upon under provisions a) or (b), then the Dean, during his or her meeting with the departmental faculty, will ask that the resolution described in (c) be brought forward for a vote.

3. Reviews of academic programs in a department are scheduled periodically as required by various external groups such as accrediting agencies or the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. However, because the results of these reviews may not be timely or germane to the current direction and quality of academic programs in a department, a program review may be called for in conjunction with a leadership evaluation. A program review is necessary if:
 

a) the Dean states, during his or her meeting with the departmental faculty, that a program review will be conducted; or

b) at least 25 percent of the total departmental faculty indicated on the mail ballot that a current program review is desirable; or

c) a resolution requesting a current program review receives the support of at least one-third of the total departmental faculty during the meeting of the departmental faculty and the Dean.
 

 If a program review has not already been decided upon under provisions a) or b), then the Dean, during his or her meeting with the departmental faculty, will ask that the resolution in c) be brought forward for a vote.

4. A single Committee will be selected to conduct the leadership evaluation and/or program review if either or both is necessary. The size and composition of the Committee, or Review Committee, or Evaluation/Review Committee will be decided by the Dean except that faculty members elected by the faculty shall constitute a majority of the Committee; secret ballot election by the departmental faculty shall govern the elected faculty membership on the Committee. The Dean may appoint up to three other members of the Committee; these may include persons other than departmental faculty. One of the elected faculty members shall be designated by the Dean to serve as chairperson.
 

 H. Departmental Leadership Evaluations

The faculty of each department is encouraged to adopt an evaluation plan and procedure, to be revised as necessary, which future Committees can consider when deciding how to conduct their evaluations; any such plan should include suggested evaluation criteria

Evaluation by Faculty. The following policies and guidelines for obtaining the departmental faculty's advice on the department's leadership are to be employed:

1. a meeting of the Chairperson with the departmental faculty, the Committee, and appropriate members of the central administration, including the President if he or she desires, at which the Chairperson shall present a "state of the department" report; this report may, at the Chairperson's discretion, include presentations by faculty members, and shall include whatever data and program information the Chairperson or the Committee consider pertinent to the evaluation process.

2. an opportunity, no more than six weeks after the election of faculty members on the Committee, for each faculty member to evaluate from a departmental perspective (a) the organization and management of affairs within the department, and (b) any other areas of concern. Faculty members shall have a clear opportunity to respond to any question by stating that they have little or no basis for judgment.

3. an opportunity for each faculty member to submit an anonymous written statement of reasons for a recommendation that the departmental leadership be continued or changed. Faculty members are expected to state any reasons they have for believing that the Chairperson has or has not helped the department meet its mission and goals. The procedure by which this opportunity is provided should establish clearly (a) that participation is expected and (b) that recommendations will be processed in a manner designed to derive an accurate reflection of the faculty's advice.

 The evaluation and advice provided by the departmental faculty shall be collected by the Committee and held in the strictest confidence by each member of the Committee. The Committee shall develop a summary* of the faculty's evaluations, together with the supporting justification which was provided. The summary of recommendations shall include the number of faculty members who made no recommendation, the number who gave no reasons but recommended reappointment or non-reappointment of the Chairperson, a summary of the reasons given for recommending reappointment or non-reappointment, and any other information contained in the recommendations from the faculty which will help the administration to understand the nature and prevalence of faculty views concerning the Chairperson's performance. The Committee shall compile verbatim quotes of the full set of reasons given by the faculty for their recommendations concerning reappointment of the Chairperson, grouping similar reasons together so that the set of reasons given by an individual cannot be identified; this compilation of verbatim quotes shall be attached to the report forwarded to the Dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, but shall not be made available to the Chairperson. The Committee shall meet with the departmental Chairperson to discuss the preliminary results of the evaluation and shall then decide whether additional information should be sought. The final results of the evaluation, including any advice provided by other constituent groups, shall be transmitted solely to the departmental Chairperson, the Dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. With due regard to protecting the confidentiality of the more sensitive results of the evaluation process, the chairperson of the Committee shall make an oral report to the departmental faculty concerning the general results of the evaluation and shall circulate to the faculty such specific results of the evaluation as the Committee, the Dean, and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs may consider appropriate.

Decision by the Dean. Upon receiving the Committee's report, and after any other evaluations, discussions, and clarifications which the Dean considers necessary, the Dean will communicate his or her decision to those concerned, normally no later than one month following submission of the Committee's report. Should the Dean's decision differ from the weight of faculty opinion and advice, the Dean will meet with the departmental faculty to discuss his or her views. Then, if the faculty so chooses, it may inform the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President of its concerns regarding the Dean's decision.

Early Leadership Evaluations. Upon a written petition to the Dean requesting an early evaluation, signed by at least 25 percent of the total faculty of the department or upon a vote of one-third or more of the total departmental faculty requesting an early evaluation, an early evaluation of departmental leadership shall be initiated except that

a) only one early evaluation may be called for during the interval between regularly scheduled evaluations; and

b) if an early evaluation results in the continued appointment of the department Chairperson, the Dean may schedule the next leadership evaluation to occur as late as five years after that early evaluation. No additional early evaluation can be called for before the date when a leadership evaluation would have occurred had there not been a call for an early evaluation.

 Early evaluations shall be conducted in the same way as regularly scheduled evaluations and with the same options for a concurrent program review. The Committee shall solicit the departmental faculty's evaluation and advice as prescribed above no later than six weeks after the petition is delivered or the vote taken; the Dean normally will communicate his or her decision to those concerned within one month following the Committee's report. The time for the Committee to complete its activities may, however, be adjusted by the Committee to accommodate those periods of the year during which members are not, or may not be, available to participate in the process, provided that such adjustments in time shall not defeat the purpose or unreasonably impede the progress of the procedures prescribed herein.

 
I. Departmental Program Review Concurrent with a Departmental Leadership Evaluation

The Dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shall consider any available reviews of program direction and program quality when considering results of Departmental Leadership Evaluations. External and/or internal reviews (e.g., accreditation reviews; internal reviews of departments for ACHE), if sufficiently extensive and current, and if they provided adequate opportunities for faculty members to express their views about the program, may supply the information needed. The decision as to whether additional information is needed is a joint responsibility of the Dean and the faculty. In making such a program review, the Review Committee or Evaluation/Review Committee shall observe the following policies and principles:

1. Program direction and quality may be influenced by many factors other than the quality of departmental leadership. An appropriate distinction should be made between a report on the program and a report dealing with the chairperson's leadership of the program.

2. An important consideration in the review shall be the views of the faculty. Each faculty member shall have an opportunity, no more than six weeks after the election of faculty members on the Committee, to assess from a departmental perspective (a) the direction in which the department is headed and the progress it is making as a whole; (b) the overall quality of the departmental curriculum; (c) the commitment to faculty scholarship and productivity; (d) student quality, (e) financial support and resources available within the department for teaching, research, and service; and (f) any other matters of concern. Faculty members shall have a clear opportunity to respond to any question by stating that they have little or no basis for judgment.

 The assessment and advice provided by the departmental faculty shall be collected by the Committee and held in the strictest confidence by each member of the Committee. The Committee shall develop a summary* of the faculty's assessments, together with the supporting justification which was provided. The Committee shall meet with the Chairperson to discuss the preliminary results of the review and shall then decide whether additional information should be sought. The final results of the review, including any from other constituent groups, shall be transmitted solely to the Chairperson, the Dean, and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. With due regard to protecting the confidentiality of the more sensitive results of the review process, the chairperson of the Committee shall make an oral report to the faculty concerning the general results of the review and shall circulate to the faculty such specific results of the review as the Committee, the Dean, and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs consider appropriate.

*The Committee may group the responses of different categories of faculty participants (based on rank, tenure status, the holding of an administrative appointment, or other appropriate classification) and may report the responses by such established categories, provided that such reporting does not identify any individual's response.  The Committee must take whatever precautions are necessary to protect fully the anonymity and confidentiality of each individual faculty member's response.  In addition, the Committee must establish a procedure to ensure that the faculty responses to this part of the evaluation are used only for the purpose prescribed herein and are not preserved after a decision concerning reappointment of the Chairperson has been announced to the faculty.   

 

J. Implementation

Each academic division and department of the University may propose to the central administration the use of more specific guidelines and procedural details. As with any University policy, the provisions for faculty participation stated herein are subject to modification and change by the President whenever circumstances and experience may warrant. However, any such changes will be discussed fully with the Faculty Senate (acting on behalf of the faculty), deans, and chairpersons prior to their approval by the President.

Express provision for monitoring the effectiveness of this policy and for recommending any changes in the policies and guidelines herein as might become desirable shall be provided for by the establishment of an advisory committee of deans, departmental chairpersons, and faculty. The members of this committee shall be appointed by the President, except that the faculty appointees shall be from a list of persons furnished to the President by the President of the Faculty Senate. A faculty member will chair the advisory committee. This committee shall report to the President through the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and shall be charged with (1) monitoring the effectiveness of the existing policies on faculty participation, (2) offering proposals for changes in the mechanism for faculty participation for consideration by the University community, (3) screening proposals for change from other sources, and (4) coordinating discussions and study by the faculty, deans, chairpersons, and the central administration of any proposed changes prior to their approval by the President.
 

Normally, any person appointed as Provost/Academic Vice President will be expected to possess credentials commensurate with an appointment at a senior rank and in an appropriate academic discipline.