800.00 Formal Review of Faculty and Academic Administrators

 
  • Table of Contents
  • 802.00Definitions

  • 810.00Procedures for the Conduct of Formal Reviews
  • 811.00 Mandatory Procedures at All Levels of Review
  • 812.00 Responsibility of the Candidate to Submit Dossier
  • 813.00 Responsibilities of the Primary Review Committee
  • 814.00 Responsibilities of the Primary Administrative Reviewer
  • 815.00 Responsibilities of the Intermediate Review Committee
  • 816.00 Responsibilities of the College Dean
  • 817.00 Responsibilities of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee

  • 820.00Responsibilities of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
  • 820.01 Relationship of Provost's Recommendation to Faculty Right to Grieve

  • 830.00Responsibilities of the President
  • 831.00 Procedures

  • 840.00Review of Academic Administrators
 

802.00 Definitions

"Additional Materials" means documentation or information requested by a review committee or reviewing administrator in addition to the dossier and documentation submitted by the candidate or required by the review procedures. It does not mean material such as external peer reviews, internal peer reviews, in-depth assessments of teaching, or other documentation required by the role, scope, criteria, standards, and procedures document of the department and/or college.

"Candidate" means any tenurable faculty member who is being reviewed under these policies and procedures of this Handbook.

"Dossier" means the materials submitted by the candidate in support of retention, tenure, and/or promotion together with any materials added and accumulated according to the provisions of this section.

"External Peer Review" means a written evaluation of a faculty member’s performance in teaching, research/creative activity, or service prepared by a colleague, faculty member or other professional from outside the University who has expertise in the candidate’s field.

"Final Administrative Reviewers" mean the Provost and the President.

"Final Review Committee" mean the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.

"Independent Review" means an independent reading and evaluation of each candidate's dossier.

"Intermediate Administrative Reviewer" means the dean who serves as the second level of administrative review for retention, tenure, promotion and special reviews. In colleges without departments, the Dean serves as the primary administrative reviewer, and there is no intermediate level of review.

"Intermediate Review Committee" means the college committee established to perform retention, tenure, promotion and special reviews. In colleges without departments, the college review committee serves as the primary review committee, and there is no intermediate level of review.

"Internal Peer Review" means a written evaluation or assessment of a faculty member’s performance solicited in accordance with the role, scope, criteria, standards, and procedures of the candidate's department and/or college and prepared by a colleague from within the University or, in the case of faculty assigned off-campus (e.g., Extension, AES, etc.), prepared by persons affiliated with the program.

"Letter of Hire" means the initial letter offering a tenurable position to an employee. The letter of hire is intended as a temporary contract for the period from the date of hire until the issuance of the Board of Regents contract. The letter of hire specifies the initial terms, conditions, and expectations of the position.

"Primary Administrative Reviewer" or "primary administrator" means the department head or dean (in colleges without departments) who serves as the first level of administrative review for retention, tenure, promotion and special reviews.

"Primary Review Committee" is the first level of review for retention, tenure, promotion and special reviews. In colleges with departments, the primary review committee is at the departmental level. When a college has no departments, the college's review committee serves as the primary review committee.

"Required Materials/Required Documentation" means documents or information required by this Handbook or the role, scope, criteria, standards, and procedures of the candidate’s department and/or college. It includes but is not limited to external peer reviews, solicited internal reviews, in-depth assessments of teaching, in-depth assessments of outreach/public service, and recommendations of the various review committees and reviewing administrators.

"Statement of Concurrence" Administrative reviewers at the intermediate and final review levels may provide a statement of concurrence with a written rationale provided by a preceding review. The reviewer's statement must clearly specify concurrence with a particular committee and/or other administrative reviewer's rationale.

A statement of concurrence is not an option if the decision of an administrative reviewer at the intermediate and final review level disagrees with a primary review decision (committee or administrative). A written rationale is required in this situation.

"Substantive review" means weighing all of the evidence in the dossier, including the rationales provided by preceding reviewers, and making a retention, promotion, and/or tenure decision based upon the criteria and standards of the candidate's department (if applicable) and college, and the University. Beyond this, substantive review has different implications at the various levels of review.

"Primary Level of Review" The reviewers at the primary level are charged with the responsibility of evaluating the quality and significance of the candidate's teaching, research and/or creative works, and service. The reviewers base their evaluations on their own knowledge of the field and the input provided by the internal and external peer reviewers. They communicate the results of their evaluation to later reviewers through their written rationale.

"Intermediate Level of Review" The rationales provided by primary reviewers and the input from internal and external peer reviewers serve as the primary evidence used to determine the quality and significance of the candidate's teaching, research and/or creative works, and service. The reviewers at the intermediate level are further charged with making equitable retention, promotion, and tenure decisions across all departments, given the departmental and college standards.

"Final Level of Review" The rationales provided by previous reviewers and the input from internal and external peer reviews serve as the primary evidence used to determine the quality and significance of the candidate's teaching, research and/or creative works, and service. The reviewers at the final level are further charged with making equitable retention, promotion, and tenure decisions across all colleges and departments, given the departmental, college and university standards.

"Supporting Documentation" means documents or information provided by a candidate to supplement his or her dossier. Supporting documentation includes but is not limited to student teacher evaluations, publications, manuscripts, video and audio tapes, and other materials which may be submitted with but are not included in the notebook containing the candidate’s dossier.

"Written Rationale" means a written explanation of how the recommendation in a retention, tenure, promotion and special review was reached. These statements are added to the dossier after each review. Administrative reviewers beyond the primary review level may provide a statement of concurrence with the written rationale of a previous review.

In the event of a split vote on a recommendation, the written rationale should provide supporting information for both the favorable and unfavorable votes. If a reviewer's recommendation does not concur with the recommendation of the primary review committee or primary Administrative Reviewer, the rationale must explain the point (s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the non-concurrence.

Revised, July 1, 2000 and July 1, 2003.


810.00

Procedures for the Conduct of Formal Reviews of Faculty

The formal review of academic faculty supports the mission and goals of Montana State University-Bozeman and assists faculty in meeting the expectations of the institution. Formal review for retention, tenure and promotion shall be conducted according to the procedures outlined in this section.

Third year, tenure, promotion, and, unless otherwise specified, special reviews are conducted on the following levels:

Primary Level of Reviews

Primary Review Committee, and Primary Administrative Reviews

These reviews include reviews by a department committee and department head, except in the case of colleges without departments, then the college review committee and dean perform the primary reviews.

Intermediate Level of Reviews

Intermediate Review Committee, and Dean's Reviews

This is always a college review committee and college dean. But, when a college has no departments, there is no intermediate level of review.

Final Level of Reviews

Final Review Committee (UTP Committee), Provost's and President's Review

Revised, July 1, 1999; Corrected July 1, 2000.

811.00 Mandatory Procedures at All Levels of Review

In conducting the review, each review committee and reviewing administrator shall consider the following:

A. the dossier submitted by the candidate and the recommendations of each preceding level of review,

B. the University criteria and standards described above,

C. the previously approved role and scope, criteria and standards document of the department and college,

D. the letter of hire and any subsequent faculty role statements, including any differential staffing/differential assignment, and

E. in cases of review for promotion and tenure, the in-depth assessment of teaching, and

Note: University’s guidelines do not require an in-depth assessment of teaching for third-year (retention) reviews. However, college or department guidelines may require such an assessment

F. in cases of review for promotion and tenure, the written evaluations of external and internal peer reviewers,

Note: University guidelines do not require external peer reviews for third-year (retention) reviews. However, college or department guidelines may require such an assessment.

Each review committee or reviewing administrator may request further documentation from the candidate and solicit and obtain additional materials deemed necessary to make a thorough and substantive review of the candidate’s qualifications.

No materials except required documentation specified in the role, scope, criteria, standards and procedures of the department and college may be added to or deleted from a candidate’s dossier without notice to the candidate and an opportunity for the candidate to respond (See 471.05, 471.06, and 812.03) and notice to any preceding review committees and reviewing administrators and an opportunity to respond. (See 811.01.)

Each review committee and reviewing administrator shall determine, to the best of its ability, whether a candidate's preceding reviews have been conducted in substantial compliance with the procedures set forth by the department, college and this Handbook.
Revised, July 1, 2000.

811.01 Reviewers Response to Requests for Additional Materials

A review committee or reviewing administrator requesting that additional materials be added to a candidate’s dossier shall notify the candidate of the request in writing and send copies of the request to all preceding review committees and reviewing administrators. If the request requires re-review of the candidate’s dossier with the additional materials, the notice shall so specify.

Any review committee or reviewing administrator may respond to the request for additional materials in writing within five days of receiving notice of the request. The responding committee or administrator shall send copies of the response to the candidate and preceding level(s) of review. Responses received within the specified time frames shall be added to the dossier and transmitted to the next level of review.

The candidate’s rights to respond are delineated in 812.03.

Revised, July 1, 1999.

812.00 Responsibility of the Candidate to Submit Dossier

The candidate is responsible for preparing the dossier and making her or his case for retention, tenure, promotion, or favorable special review. Candidates shall submit to the primary review committee or primary administrative reviewer, a dossier, which shall include:

A. A curriculum vitae listing all teaching, research/creative activities and outreach/public service activities.

 
B. A narrative self-evaluation or personal statement,

C. Documentation of role, assignments, and performance including the letter of hire, any subsequent role statements or reassignments, and annual reviews and ratings, and all the letters conveying MSU-Bozeman administrators' and committees' recommendations from the most recent formal review (if such a review has occurred within the past 7 years).

 
D. Information as to performance and accomplishments in teaching, research/creative activity, outreach/public service, and professional development, appropriate to the assignment.

If appropriate to the assignment, the dossier shall also include a set of articles, publications, creative endeavors, or other evidence that, in the candidate’s judgment, represents his or her best efforts to advance the discipline or profession. This set of materials shall be sent to external peer reviewers.

The candidate should also provide supporting documentation including but not limited to publications, video and audio tapes, student-teacher evaluations, and other material separate from the dossier. During the review period, this supporting documentation shall be retained by the college dean and transmitted to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee upon request.

The "Cover Sheet--Candidate's Dossier," available from the office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, shall be used as the cover page of the dossier.

Revised, July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2003.

812.01 Area of Excellence/Promise of Excellence

For promotion and tenure reviews,the candidate, in consultation with his or her primary administrator or primary review committee, is responsible for identifying the area of excellence/promise of excellence on which he or she will be evaluated and for including this information on the dossier cover sheet and in the Self-Evaluation/Personal Statement. The area of excellence/promise of excellence will normally be in whichever area (teaching or research) represents the candidate’s greatest responsibilities.

Note: University guidelines do not require candidates for third-year (retention) reviews to identify an area of excellence/promise of excellence.

Renumbered and revised, July 1, 1998; revised July 1, 2000.

812.02 Alterations to the Dossier

The candidate may not add to, alter, modify, delete or remove documents from his or her dossier once it has been submitted except by:

A. updating the status of materials in support of tenure unknown at the time the dossier was submitted,

B. responding to a review committee's or reviewing administrator’s request for additional materials or notice that materials in addition to those required by the role, scope, criteria, standards and procedures document have been added to the dossier, (See 471.05, 471.06 and 812.03), or

C. responding to a negative recommendation from the primary review committee and/or the primary administrative reviewer as set forth in 812.04.

Effective, July 1, 1999; revised July, 1, 1999.


812.03 Opportunity for Candidate to Respond to Requests for Additional Information

A. A candidate who receives a request for additional materials in his or her possession shall have five days to provide the requested materials. He or she may submit a brief statement or explanation with the requested material. (See 471.05.)

 
B. A candidate who receives notice that a review committee or reviewing administrator has requested additional materials not in his or her possession may submit a brief statement or explanation about the requested material. The response shall be submitted within five days of receiving notice of the request for materials. (See 471.06.)

 
C. Responses to requests for additional material shall be submitted to the chair of the review committee or reviewing administrator making the request and copied to preceding review committees and reviewing administrators. (See 811.01.) Responses shall be added to the dossier, if received within the time frames set forth above.

Effective, July 1, 1998.

812.04 Opportunity for Candidate to Respond to a Negative Recommendation from the Primary Review Committee or Primary Administrative Reviewer, or Peer Reviewers.
A. A candidate who receives a negative recommendation from the primary review committee and/or the primary administrative reviewer may submit a response to the negative recommendation (See 471.04). In the case of a tie vote, the candidate has the right to respond.

 
B. The candidate may also respond to peer reviews. Within three working days from the date of receipt of the negative recommendation, the candidate may submit a written request to the primary administrative reviewer for a summary of all peer reviews contained in the dossier. The primary administrative reviewer shall have five working days from the date of receipt of the candidate's written request to compile the summary and forward it to the candidate. The summary should convey the substance of the peer review but must protect the identities of the reviewers (See 471.04).

 
C. The candidate must submit his or her response to the negative recommendation(s) within five working days from the date of receipt of the negative recommendation(s) or peer review summary, whichever is later.

 
D. The candidate's response to a negative recommendation shall be submitted to the next review committee or administrative reviewer.
 
Negative Recommendation from... Respond to...
Primary Review Committee Primary Administrative Reviewer
Primary Administrative Reviewer Intermediate Review Committee, if any, otherwise Final Review Committee.
E. Responses shall be copied to the preceding level(s) of review and added to the dossier if received within the time frame set forth above.

Revised July 1, 2002.

813.00 Responsibilities of the Primary Review Committee

Each department or college without departments shall establish a "primary review committee" to consider the dossier submitted by each candidate for review and formulate its recommendation for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. Primary review committees shall conduct a fair, objective, independent, and substantive review of the candidates' dossiers based on department, college, and University criteria and standards. (See 600.00.)

Revised July, 1, 1999.

813.01 Membership

Each department (or college) shall establish the policies and procedures for appointing and/or electing the primary review committee. The committee shall be composed only of tenured or tenurable faculty at least a majority of whom shall be elected by departmental (or college) faculty. The committee shall have at least twenty five percent (25%) female and/or minority representation whenever possible. No faculty member shall serve on the primary review committee during the year of the review of her or his own dossier.

The primary administrative reviewer may be present at committee meetings at the discretion of the committee. The administrator may present data that is essential to the committee's deliberations, but shall not be present when the committee votes.

Revised, July 1, 1999.

813.02 Procedures of the Committee

The primary review committee shall review all submitted materials, provide any required materials, and solicit and obtain additional materials it deems necessary to make a fair, objective, independent, thorough and substantive review of the candidate's qualifications, in accordance with 811.00. The committee shall prepare its written recommendation, concerning the retention, tenure, and/or promotion of each candidate. This recommendation shall include a rationale explaining the reasons for the decision, vote tally and will be forwarded to the primary administrative reviewer with a copy sent to the candidate. The recommendation becomes a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel files maintained in the department or college offices.

Revised July, 1, 1999.

813.03 Procedures for Obtaining External Peer Reviews

Each department (or college) shall establish the specific procedures by which external peer reviews shall be conducted. When required, peer reviews shall be obtained from no fewer than three (3) external reviewers, the majority of whom shall be recommended by the primary review committee, the minority of whom shall be recommended by the candidate.

Note: University guidelines do not require external peer reviews for third-year (retention) reviews. However, college or department guidelines may require such an assessment.

Revised July, 1, 2000.

813.04 Procedures for Obtaining Internal Reviews

Each department (or college) shall establish the specific procedures by which letters of support and/or internal reviews by students, staff, and other faculty shall be obtained. Candidates shall not solicit letters of support or internal reviews for themselves.

Revised July, 1, 1999.

814.00 Responsibilities of the Primary Administrative Reviewer

The primary administrative reviewer shall review all submitted materials, provide any required materials, and conduct an independent and substantive review of the candidate's dossier and make recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion, in accordance with 811.00. The recommendation shall include a written rationale. If the administrator's recommendation does not concur with that of the primary review committee, the administrator's rationale must explain the point(s) of difference, I.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence.

The primary administrator is also responsible for:

A. Accurately describing, in the initial letter of hire, the primary duties, responsibilities and conditions of employment, including the instructional or professional practice expectations of the appointment and years of credit toward tenure, of the faculty member.

 
B. Informing the faculty member of the University, college, and department role and scope, criteria and standards documents which form the basis of formal review.

 
C. Ensuring that each faculty member has access to the University, college, and department documents related to annual review, retention, tenure, and promotion.

 
D. Preparing role statements, after negotiation with the faculty member that accurately describe the faculty member's current responsibilities, including any agreement regarding differential assignments which have been approved by the dean and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

 
E. Informing faculty members of the applicable time lines for review.

F. Providing the primary review committee with information and materials essential to their deliberations, according to department, college and University procedures.

 
G. Forwarding the candidate's dossier, including recommendation(s), to the next administrative reviewer and sending a copy of the recommendation(s) to the candidate.

 
H. Maintaining complete, accurate and up-to-date files on each faculty member, including a copy of any dossier submitted for formal review. Primary administrators shall ensure that peer review letters have been removed from the dossier before placing it in the employee’s personal file.

Revised, July 1, 1998; revised July, 1, 1999.

815.00 Responsibilities of the Intermediate Review Committee

Each college that is not the primary level of review shall establish an "intermediate review committee" to consider the dossier submitted by each candidate and formulate its recommendation for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. The intermediate review committee shall review all submitted materials, provide any required materials, conduct a fair, objective, independent, and substantive review of the candidate's dossier based on department, college, and University criteria and standards and make recommendations regarding retention, tenure or promotion, in accordance with 811.00. The recommendation shall include a written rationale. If the intermediate review committee's recommendation does not concur with those of the primary review committee or the primary administrative reviewer, the committee's rationale must explain the point(s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence.

The intermediate review committee is also responsible for:

A. Reviewing, making suggestions for modification, and approving the role and scope, criteria and standards documents of the departments.

B. Conducting the election for faculty representatives to the college and UPT Committees.

C. Preparing a written recommendation, with vote tally, concerning the retention, tenure, and/or promotion of each candidate for review.

Revised, July 1, 1999.

815.01 Membership

Each college shall establish the policies and procedures by which the membership of the committee shall be established. The intermediate review committee shall be composed only of tenured faculty, at least a majority of whom shall be elected by college faculty. A department head may serve on the committee only if elected by the college faculty. Whenever possible, the committee shall have at least 25% female and/or minority representation. If that representation is not achieved by election, the dean shall appoint such additional members as may be necessary to achieve that representation.

No faculty member shall serve on the committee during the year of review of her or his own dossier.

The college dean may be present at committee meetings, at the discretion of the committee, to present data that is essential to the committee's deliberations but shall not be present when the committee votes.

Revised, July 1, 1999.

815.02 Procedures

[For colleges with three or more departments,] a department representative to an intermediate review committee shall not vote when a candidate from his or her department is reviewed. The representative may provide background information about the department but shall not express personal opinions about the candidate or the candidate's qualifications or experience. [For colleges with only two departments (e.g., the College of Education, Health and Human Development), the restrictions on participation will apply not to the department level, but to the unit/option level.]

The intermediate review committee:

A. prepares a written recommendation, with vote tally, concerning the retention, tenure, and/or promotion of each candidate and

B. forwards the recommendation to the dean, sending a copy to the candidate. The recommendation becomes a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel files maintained in the dean's office.

Revised, July 1, 1999; and July 1, 2005.

816.00 Responsibilities of the College Dean

The college dean, when serving as the administrative reviewer at the intermediate level of review, shall review all submitted materials, provide any required materials, conduct an independent and substantive review of the candidate's dossier and make recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion in accordance with 811.00. The recommendation shall include a written rationale or statement of concurrence. If the intermediate level administrator's recommendation does not concur with those of the primary review committee or the primary administrative reviewer, the administrator's rationale must explain the point (s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence.

The college dean is also responsible for:

A. Informing faculty members, committee members, and department heads of the applicable time lines for review.

B. Providing the intermediate review committee with information and materials essential to their deliberations, according to college and University policies and procedures.

C. Forwarding the candidate's dossier, with her or his recommendations, to the UPT Committee and sending a copy of the written recommendation to the candidate.

Revised, July 1, 2000.

817.00 Responsibilities of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee

The final review committee, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee ( UPT Committee), shall be composed and charged according to 241.00. The college representative to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee shall not vote when a candidate from his or her college is reviewed. The Chair of Faculty Affairs shall not vote when a candidate from his or her department is reviewed. If the Faculty Affairs Chair is from a college without constituent departments, he or she shall not vote when a candidate from his or her college is reviewed. In these instances, the representative may provide background information about the college and department but shall not express personal opinions about the candidate or the candidate’s qualifications or experience.

The Committee shall review all submitted materials, conduct a fair, objective independent and substantive review of the candidate's dossier and make recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion, in accordance with 811.00. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, with a copy sent to the candidate, department head, and college dean. The recommendation shall include a written rationale. If the UPT Committee's recommendation does not concur with those of the primary review committee or the primary administrative reviewer, the rationale must explain the point (s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence. The recommendation becomes a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel files maintained in the department and college offices.

The Committee is also responsible for reviewing, making suggestions for change, and approving new or revised departmental and college role and scope statements, procedures, criteria, and standards related to tenure and promotion.

Revised, July 1, 1999.


820.00

Responsibilities of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall review all submitted materials, conduct an independent and substantive review of each candidate's dossier, and make recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion, in accordance with 811.00. The recommendation shall include a written rationale or statement of concurrence. If the Provost's recommendation does not concur with those of the primary review committee or the primary administrative reviewer, the rationale must explain the point (s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence.

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs is also responsible for:

A. informing department heads and deans of the applicable time lines for review,

B. providing the UPT Committee with information and materials essential to its deliberations,

C. forwarding a copy of the recommendation to the President by the deadlines established in 616.01, with copies to the candidate, candidate's dean, and department head, and

D. retaining copies of the dossier of each candidate under review for a minimum of three (3) years.

Revised, July 1, 2000.

820.01 Relationship of Provost's Recommendation to Faculty Right to Grieve

A candidate may attempt conciliation, or proceed directly to formal grievance, once he or she receives notice of a negative retention, tenure, or promotion decision from the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. (See 1312.00.)  Seeking conciliation or filing a grievance will not delay or extend the dates of the terminal contract issued to any candidate who received a negative retention or tenure decision.

Revised, July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2003.


830.00 Responsibilities of the President

The President receives all of the recommendation concerning each candidate from the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The President may conduct an independent and substantive review of a candidate's dossier and make a recommendation regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion. If the recommendation of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs/UPT Committee has been grieved, the President may seek additional information from the Committee on Conciliation, the Grievance Committee and/or the Human Resources/Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) Director before making his or her recommendation. The President makes and forwards her or his own recommendation to the Board of Regents.

Revised July, 1, 1999.

831.00 Procedures

The President may reverse the decision of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs/UPT Committee. In such cases, the President shall provide a written rationale for the decision. If the President's recommendation does not concur with those of the primary review committee and the primary administrative reviewer, the rationale must explain the point(s) of difference, i.e., the reason for the nonconcurrence. The President may require that some or all of a faculty member's dossier be "re-reviewed" under such conditions and circumstances as he or she shall establish. Unless otherwise specified by the President, the re-review shall be based on the dossier as originally submitted to the primary review committee.

The President shall forward her or his final recommendation to the Board of Regents with copies to the faculty member, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Chair of the UPT Committee, the college dean, and the department head. The final recommendation shall be become a permanent part of the faculty member's file.

The President's recommendation may be appealed to the Commissioner of Higher Education and the Board of Regents, subject to their policies and procedures.

Revised, July 1, 1999.


840.00 Review of Academic Administrators

For the purpose of this policy, academic administrators shall be Vice Presidents, Deans and Department Heads.

Immediate faculty supervisors (usually Department Heads and Associate Deans) will be reviewed annually. Other academic administrators shall be reviewed at least once every three years. The method and manner of review shall be determined by the immediate supervisor of the person reviewed. The use of 360 reviews for Vice Presidents and Deans is encouraged.

Faculty shall have the opportunity to regularly provide input to the review of academic administrators. The supervisors conducting the review of the administrator shall formally solicit faculty input concerning the performance of the administrator.

Formal mechanisms shall be implemented which guarantee the confidentiality of faculty input. Faculty input shall be solicited through Faculty Senate for Vice Presidents, throughout the college for Deans, and within the Department for Department Heads.

Faculty Senate shall draft a set of model questions for each level of review which will be included in the solicitation of faculty evaluation. Faculty eligible to participate in the review will submit their responses to the questions to Faculty Senate, which will confirm eligibility to evaluate, assign a number to the evaluation, and forward a copy to the supervisor conducting the performance review.

The written review provided to the academic administrator shall specifically address the evaluations received from faculty, and issues raised shall be specifically addressed with the administrator under review.

The performance reviews of academic administrators are matters of individual privacy and will not be disclosed by the evaluator.

The solicitation of faculty input shall be completed by April 15. Should April 15 fall on a weekend, it will be due the following week day.


Table of Contents