Review and Evaluation of Chairpersons

1. The performance of each chairperson is reviewed annually and evaluated in depth periodically. Chairpersons are evaluated in the context of their efforts to realize the specific goals agreed to by the department, the chairperson, and the dean. They are evaluated in terms of their meeting the responsibilities and duties summarized in Section 3, and they will be evaluated specifically in consideration of the criteria of evaluation outlined below in this document.
   1. Annual Review of Chairperson

      A regular annual review session with the department chairperson will be scheduled by his or her dean. The annual review, although certainly not casual, will not reach the degree of formality or the depth of analysis and study envisioned for the periodic evaluation, and there will be 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 will provide a critique of the past year, its successes and failures, the current status of the department and the development of plans and the identification of needs for the future. In this review, the dean will undoubtedly find it useful and illuminating to consider the annual report of the department (or a suitable draft of it), and to examine carefully with the chairperson the completed annual Faculty Appraisal and Planning Forms.

      The review as a whole should provide the chairperson with useful insights and constructive criticism in the performance of his or her tasks, 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 chairperson new goals, priorities, policies, and procedures to help strengthen the department or improve its administration.

   2. Periodic Evaluation of Chairperson

      More intensive evaluations of chairpersons are scheduled at periods consistent with the five-year term of office. The time of evaluation is generally toward the end of the penultimate year of the term of office. An evaluation of the work of any department chairperson at other than the regular period may be initiated by the chairperson 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.

      1. Procedures for Periodic Evaluation
         1. When the occasion of the periodic evaluation arises, the dean will appoint an ad hoc evaluation committee. Members of this committee shall be chosen after consultation with the department chairperson and other appropriate faculty in the unit and shall consist of faculty from the department, faculty from related departments, and students majoring or doing graduate work in the department. The dean will appoint the person to chair the committee.
         2. At its initial meeting, the ad hoc Periodic Evaluation Committee shall determine its specific mode of operation in the 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). While the operation of each committee may therefore vary somewhat, certain procedures must be incorporated in the operation of all committees:
            1. Study of the periodic statement and critique of department goals made by each department (see section 3-C above).
            2. In-depth interviews with the chairperson, department faculty members, associate or assistant chairperson, and students. Where appropriate or of special importance, the committee may solicit information from agencies or individuals outside the department, college, or campus.
            3. 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 chairperson being evaluated, and the dean will be 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.
            4. The committee will then submit a written report to the dean including specific recommendations and the full evidence to support them. At the same time, it shall make available to the department chairperson a copy of the recommendations and a summary of the evidence it has presented to support them. The committee shall take all necessary safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the sources of information, but shall accept no information whose source it cannot establish and verify.
            5. The chairperson shall have seven days after receiving the copy of the recommendations and a summary of the evidence to comment, in writing, to the dean. It will remain 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.
            6. While the ad hoc committee is conducting its evaluation, the dean shall make an independent evaluation of the chairperson based on previous annual reviews, consultations with other administrators and department chairs, and similar appropriate sources of information.

               Both reports will be forwarded to the Provost and the President for their consideration and discussion.

            7. After conferring with the Provost and the President, the dean will discuss the recommendations and the final report of the Periodic Evaluation Committee and his or her own evaluation with the department chairperson being evaluated. In the event of a decision for nonreappointment of a chairperson, a meeting will be held to discuss the reasons for nonreappointment. The meeting will include the President, the Provost, the Dean, and the affected Chairperson. This meeting can be waived by the affected Chairperson. Since chairpersons serve at the pleasure of the President, the final decision on reappointment will come from the President.
         3. 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 questions, the response to which will indicate:

            1. Leadership
               1. What are the goals identified by the department, and to what extent have these goals been defined, planned for, or achieved by the chairperson's activities?
               2. What plans have been formulated in the department for attaining these goals? Does the chairperson generate good departmental support for the goals?
               3. How adequately has the chairperson guided the development of individual faculty members, or otherwise provided for their guidance?
               4. Is there evidence of the chairperson's concern for internal evaluations of change and of the ongoing programs of the department?
               5. How are priorities for the allocation of resources determined? Is the chairperson instrumental in helping the department establish priorities and in fairly administering them?
            2. Success with Departmental Affairs
               1. How successful is the chairperson in maximizing program effectiveness in terms of resources available?
               2. How effective is the chairperson in using his or her influence to improve the quality of teaching in the department?
               3. Does the chairperson create and maintain an appropriate intellectual environment for the development of scholarship in the department?
               4. Does the chairperson encourage and positively support efforts in research and publication (or their professional equivalent) by members of the department?
               5. What evidence is there of improvement of quality of faculty, staff, and programs during the period being reviewed? What is the state of faculty morale?
            3. Decision Making
               1. Do the 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?
               2. Within the context of (1) above, are the chairperson's decisions generally seen as fair and proper ones? Does he or she take full responsibility for decisions whenever appropriate?
            4. Personal Qualities
               1. Overall, how effectively does the chairperson communicate with others in the department?
               2. What success (as departmental representative) has the chairperson had with administrative offices?
               3. What is the quality of the chairperson's teaching?
               4. What is the quality of the chairperson's scholarship?