|Review And Evaluation Of Departmental Chairs And Academic
The performance of each chair is reviewed annually and evaluated in
depth periodically. Chairs are evaluated in the context of their
efforts to realize the specific goals agreed to by the department, the
chair, and the dean. They are evaluated in terms of their meeting
the responsibilities and duties summarized above, and they are evaluated
specifically in consideration of the criteria of evaluation outlined below
in this document.
Annual Review of Chair
Periodic Evaluation of Chair
A regular annual review session with the department chair is scheduled
by the dean. The annual review does not reach the degree of formality
or the depth of analysis and study envisioned for the periodic evaluation,
and there are no requirements for extensive involvement of faculty, students,
alumni, or persons external to the University for this review. If deemed
helpful, however, the parties to the review may wish to expand the review
to include some of these sources.
The annual review provides a critique of the past year, the current status
of the department, and the development of plans and the identification
of needs for the future.
The review provides the chair with useful insights and constructive criticism
regarding the chair's performance, and an improved perspective on the department's
development and mission in the college. Additionally, it should provide
the dean with information and insights to represent the needs of the department
most effectively to the provost. During the review, the dean may
suggest to the chair new goals, priorities, policies, and procedures to
help strengthen the department or improve its administration.
More intensive evaluations of chairs are scheduled at periods consistent
with the five-year term of office. The time of evaluation is toward
the end of the penultimate year of the term of office. An evaluation
of the work of any department chair at other than the regular period may
be initiated by the chair of the department, by the dean, by the provost,
or by the president; in addition, such a review may be requested by a simple
majority of the members of the department by petition to the dean.
Procedures for Periodic Evaluation
When the occasion of the periodic evaluation arises, the dean appoints
an ad hoc evaluation committee. Members of this committee are chosen
after consultation with the department chair and other appropriate faculty
in the unit and consist of faculty from the department, faculty from related
departments, and students majoring or doing graduate work in the department.
The dean appoints the chair of the committee.
At its initial meeting, the ad hoc Periodic Evaluation Committee shall
determine its specific mode of operation in light of these general guidelines
and in conformity with the department's usual method of conducting such
business (compare, for example, its review procedures for promotion and
tenure decisions - see note #3). While the operation
of each committee may therefore vary somewhat, certain activities are incorporated
in the operation of all committees.
A study of the periodic statement of department goals made by each department
In-depth interviews with the chair, department faculty members, associate
or assistant chair, and students are conducted. Where appropriate,
the committee may solicit information from agencies or individuals outside
the department, college, or campus.
At the conclusion of the evaluation committee's review and just prior to
the completion of its final report, a meeting involving the evaluation committee,
the chair being evaluated, and the dean is held. The purpose of this
meeting is to discuss questions, perceptions, etc., with the goal of rectifying
errors of fact or clarifying misperceptions of important issues before written
statements are formally distributed.
The committee then submits a written report to the dean including specific
recommendations and the evidence to support them. It makes available to
the department chair a copy of the recommendations and a summary of the
evidence it has presented to support them. The committee takes all
necessary precautions to protect the confidentiality of the sources of
information and accepts no information whose source it cannot establish
The chair has seven days after receiving the copy of the recommendations
and a summary of the evidence to comment in writing to the dean.
It remains the responsibility of the committee to assure appropriate confidentiality
of all statements it has received from everyone interviewed or otherwise
polled in its review procedures.
While the ad hoc committee is conducting its evaluation, the dean makes
an independent evaluation of the chair based on previous annual reviews,
consultations with other administrators and department chairs, and similar
appropriate sources of information. Both reports are forwarded to
the provost and the president for their consideration and discussion.
After conferring with the provost and the president, the dean discusses
the recommendations and the final report of the Periodic Evaluation Committee
and the dean's evaluation with the department chair being evaluated.
In the event of a decision of nonreappointment of a chair, a meeting is
held to discuss the reasons for nonreappointment. The meeting usually
includes the president, the provost, the dean, and the affected chair.
This meeting can be waived by the affected chair. The final decision on
reappointment comes from the president or, as customarily delegated, the
General Criteria for Periodic Review and Evaluation Committees
In addition to any factors unique to the particular department, the
evaluation and interpretation of the assessments supplied to the committee
are to be made in light of consideration of the following categories and
Success with Departmental Affairs
What are the goals identified by the department, and to what extent have
these goals been defined, planned for, or achieved by the chair's activities?
What plans have been formulated in the department for attaining these goals?
Does the chair generate good departmental support for the goals?
How adequately has the chair guided the development of individual faculty
members or otherwise provided for their guidance?
Is there evidence of the chair's concern for internal evaluations of change
and of the ongoing programs of the department?
How are priorities for the allocation of resources determined? Is
the chair instrumental in helping the department establish priorities and
in fairly administering them?
Is the chair successful in maximizing program effectiveness in terms of
Is the chair effective in to improving the quality of teaching in the department?
Does the chair create and maintain an appropriate intellectual environment
for the development of scholarship in the department?
Does the chair encourage and support efforts in research and publication
(or their professional equivalent) by members of the department?
What evidence is there of improvement of quality of faculty, staff, and
programs during the period being reviewed? What is the state of faculty
Do faculty and students have adequate opportunity for participation in
the development of academic policy, or academic programs, and in other
appropriate activities within the department?
Within the context of (1) above, are the chair's decisions generally seen
as fair and proper ones? Is full responsibility taken for decisions
Overall, how effectively does the chair communicate with others in the
What success (as departmental representative) has the chair had with administrative
What is the quality of the chair's teaching?
What is the quality of the chair's scholarship?
Note #3: The specific assessment
documents to be used are selected by the departments and colleges involved.
They are distributed to the faculty in the department of the chair being
evaluated; they are returned to the dean, and their confidentiality at
the level of the dean is maintained.