Approved by the
Approved by the Chancellor: November 27, 2007
(excerpt from Chancellor’s 11-27-07 letter: “This will be
addressed by the Board of Trustees, as they reported early in this academic
year. This is a personnel matter and, as such, the Board has authority over
it.”)
The
Report on faculty input to the Chancellor
and his/her representatives in the evaluation of administrators
1. Introduction
The
East Carolina University community believes every university employee deserves
regular evaluation of his or her performance of professional duties as they relate
to a formal job description and the university's needs. This process should be
honest, open, and forthright; including an acknowledgment of the employee's
achievements, as well as an assessment of his or her ability to match the
university's expectations, and a determination of areas needing improvement.
The
evaluation of ECU’s administrators is the responsibility of the Board of
Trustees, the Chancellor, or his/her representatives. In the evaluation of the
academic officers, the input of the faculty is of primary consideration,
although input from a variety of other groups is also necessary and must be
received. In the evaluation of the Chancellor, the views of constituencies
other than the faculty are as important as those of the faculty.
The
procedures described in this policy are designed to serve the following
purposes:
·
to enable the faculty to provide input to academic
administrators charged by the Board of Trustees or the Chancellor to conduct
administrator evaluations;
·
to
provide information to administrators for the purpose of self-evaluation and improvement of
performance;
2. Criteria to be used by members of the faculty in providing
input in the administrative evaluation process, where applicable.
a. Leadership - Promotes high standards in the areas of teaching, research/creative activity, and service; communicates priorities, standards, and administrative procedures effectively; articulates a vision for the future; communicates ideas in a clear and timely fashion to faculty, staff, and other University administrators; demonstrates listening skills; provides national and statewide visibility and recognition for the constituency; contributes to the leadership of the University and effectively advocates for all relevant constituencies.
b. Shared Governance – Supports the principles of shared governance; adheres to the policies of the ECU Faculty Manual and other established governance documents.
c. Planning - Works effectively with faculty and staff in identifying appropriate short-term and long-term goals, in setting priorities, and in focusing resources across all constituencies.
d. Administration and Management - Oversees the recruitment and appointment of highly qualified faculty and staff; provides support for the successful recruitment and retention of administrators, faculty and staff; manages the administrative office effectively; seeks input and accepts responsibility for decisions; provides for effective budget management; works effectively with other administrative officers; makes decisions in a timely fashion.
e. Diversity - Encourages diversity and implements mechanisms for attracting and retaining underrepresented groups; is responsive to cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity; demonstrates and encourages respect for all persons in the constituency and the University.
f. Teaching – Supports and fosters a climate that promotes excellence in teaching.
g. Research/Creative Activity – Supports and fosters a climate that promotes excellence in research/creative activities.
h. Patient Care – Supports and fosters a climate that promotes an excellence in patient care.
i. Service – Participates and encourages service activities related to the fulfillment of the University’s mission.
j. Development - Within the context of the administrative office, works to identify and pursue philanthropic support for the constituency; develops public and constituency support for the University.
k. Personnel Development - Supports and defends academic freedom; provides guidance, support and resources for faculty and staff development, particularly in promotion, tenure and evaluation; demonstrates equitable judgment and action.
l. Assessment - Effectively evaluates or assesses the units under his/her administration, acknowledges areas of excellence, and recommends areas where improvement is needed.
3.
Timeframe
The reviewing officer
shall inform the constituent faculty of the need for a Review committee at
least 5 months prior to the faculty vote on the effectiveness of the
administrator. The committee will present its final report to the reviewing
officer before the vote occurs. In accordance with part F of Appendix L, the
faculty vote on the effectiveness of the administrator shall occur by the end
of March.
4. Appointment of faculty representation to a
Review Committee for Administrator Evaluations
The East Carolina
University faculty believe that it is important for the review of academic
administrators to be conducted so as to include as many as possible of the
faculty constituencies with whom an administrator works. The involvement of faculty in substantive
ways is critical to an effective evaluation.
Faculty involvement in
the review of administrators shall be initiated by the administrator charged by
the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, or his/her representatives to conduct
the review (hereafter to be named the reviewing officer). The review of the Chancellor shall be initiated
by the Board of Trustees. In September, the reviewing officer will
notify the Chair of the Faculty to begin the faculty portion of the review
process.
To be eligible to serve
on a Review Committee, a faculty member must meet the definition of voting
faculty as noted above in Section A of this appendix.
For the evaluation of
the Chancellor, the faculty members of the Review Committee will be selected in
the following way:
a. The Committee on Committees, in consultation
with the reviewing officer, will
provide a slate of candidates for
the Review Committee.
b.
The
Committee during the November
For the evaluation of the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences and Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, seven faculty members of the Review Committee will be selected in the following way:
a. The Committee on
Committees, in consultation with the reviewing officer, will
provide a slate of faculty
candidates for each Review Committee representing
the appropriate constituencies for the
administrator being reviewed.
b. The
Review Committee during the November
c. The Chancellor or his representative
will appoint 3 members for each
Review Committee.
For the review of Deans, Associate Deans, Directors of Academic Library Services and the Health Sciences Library, the faculty members of the Review Committee will be selected in the following way:
a. The officer will
designate a committee of at least 3 persons and no more than
7.
b. At least two-thirds of this committee
will be voting faculty members
belonging to the entire constituency
of the office whose administrator is under
review, appointed by the Chair of
the Faculty in consultation with the
constituency and the reviewing
officer, and voting at a meeting called for that
purpose by the reviewing
officer.
c. The remainder of
the committee (no more than one-third) will be chosen from
other constituencies in a manner
designated by the reviewing officer.
For the review of Chairs and Directors of Professional Schools, Centers, and Institutes with academic programs, the faculty members of the Review Committee will be selected in the following way:
a. The officer will
designate a committee of at least 3 persons and no more than
7.
b. At least two-thirds of this committee
will be voting faculty members
belonging to the entire constituency
of the office whose administrator is under
review, elected by secret ballot by a majority
of the voting faculty members of
that constituency present, and
voting at a meeting called for that purpose by
the reviewing officer.
c. The remainder of
the committee (no more than one-third) will be chosen from
other constituencies in a manner
designated by the reviewing officer.
The reviewing officer may request that the officer under
review suggest potential members of the Review Committee. Administrators
should not be appointed to Review Committees when they are themselves
undergoing review.
6. Procedures
The Review Committee is responsible for conducting it’s evaluation in accordance with the criteria established in Section 2. Criteria to be used by members of the faculty in providing input in the administrative evaluation process. The Review Committee is also responsible for the following procedural aspects of the review:
a.
Meet with the reviewing officer to whom it reports to receive advice
regarding
specific areas for review and persons to consult, and to determine a proper
timeline for the review to assure that the faculty evaluation material is ready
in time to be included in the entire evaluation document.
b. Meet with the officer under review. At this time, the officer under review will submit the administrative performance portfolio (attachment), and may also suggest additional persons to consult. There should be no bar to further oral or written communication after this meeting.
c. The committee may gather other information as suggested by the reviewing officer, the officer under review or at its own discretion; including, if appropriate, reviews by professionals outside the constituency regarding the performance of the officer under review in representing the officer’s unit externally.
d. The committee will determine a method of operation that allows maximum participation in a consistent way. The committee will submit that method to the entire constituent faculty as a public document. This document should:
i.
State clearly how the review information will be sought.
ii. Specify the
timeframe for written or oral evaluations of the performance of
the officer under review by faculty.
iii. Specify procedures to address confidentiality in information supplied to
the
committee and to allow for anonymous
input to the committee.
iv. Identify
persons or groups with whom the committee wishes to speak.
v. Indicate
openness to meetings with reasonable time limits with any
individual or group that seeks
access.
7. Review Reporting
Before the final faculty report is given to the reviewing officer, a draft of the report will be given to the administrator under review. It is appropriate to invite the administrator under review for an informal discussion of the findings. He or she shall be invited to prepare a written response. If he or she should choose to do so then any such response should be included with the final written report.
The Review Committee shall present a written report to the reviewing officer.
For Deans, Directors of Academic Centers and Institutes, and unit code administrators, the final written report should be available to voting faculty, upon permission of the administrator under review, prior to the faculty’s vote on administrator’s effectiveness. The final written report shall be forwarded to the reviewing officer at the same time as the report of the results of the unit faculty’s vote on the administrator’s effectiveness.
The faculty report should:
a. Describe the main
premises governing the report.
b. State
clearly what information was used, and the sources of this information
in assessing performance in relation
to the standards of evaluation.
c. Give fair
treatment both to the strengths and the weaknesses of administrator.
d. Clearly
state whether:
i.
The review is positive.
ii. The Review Committee has areas
of concern, in which case
recommendations for improvement
should be provided.
iii. The review is negative.
The committee shall continue its work until it receives information on how the officer under review responds to constructive feedback and/or a final decision is made.
After meeting with the officer under review the Review Committee will provide its report to the reviewing officer.
8. After the review
The reviewing officer
shall review the Review Committee’s report and inform the officer under review,
the Review Committee and the faculty of the unit of his or her conclusions. A
negative review shall constitute a recommendation from the committee that the
administrator be removed.
A decision to terminate an administrative officer’s appointment ultimately
rests with the Chancellor, although the recommendation is generally made by the
appointing officer. If the administrative officer under review is the
Chancellor, the decision to terminate shall be made by the Board of
Trustees.
The reviewing officer will forward the report and his/her recommendation to the
Chancellor. The reviewing officer or Board of Trustees shall publish a summary
of the review, including a statement of actions taken as a result of the
review. The summary shall include the principles, procedures, and criteria used
in the review, but shall exclude any legally confidential information. (For a
list of specific information that is appropriate to disclose see NC General
Statutes #126-23.
________________________________________________________________
Attachment
The administrative portfolio is prepared by the officer under review and documents his or her performance during the review period.
The administrative portfolio for the Review Committee shall include the
following documents and statements:
1. Documents
a. Cumulative Report for Reappointment,
Promotion, and Tenure Form (see
Part XII. of the ECU Faculty Manual);
b. unit strategic planning
progress reports during the review period;
c. annual reports for the unit
during the review period;
d. administrator’s annual
report during the review period;
e. annual faculty evaluation
survey results during the review period (if such
surveys are conducted for the officer under review);
f. annual personnel
evaluations by the supervisor of the officer under review performed during the review period.
2. Statements
The administrative portfolio shall include a reflective statement describing
the officer-under-review’s:
a. administrative philosophy, strategies,
and methodologies;
b. attempted innovations and assessment of their
effectiveness;
c. a statement of objectives
for the future of the administrative unit;
d. a written summary statement
prepared by the officer under review
that documents his or her
performance during the review period. The summary
statement shall address the evaluation standards referenced in Section H.2. above.
Upon permission of the administrator under review, the above documents and
statements shall be forwarded to the voting faculty a minimum of five working
days prior to their vote. If permission
is denied, an abridged administrative portfolio, which shall include at least
the following documents and statements, will be forwarded to the voting faculty
a minimum of five working days prior to their vote.
The abridged administrative portfolio for voting faculty review shall include
at least the following documents and statements:
1. Documents
a. Cumulative Report for
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Form (see
Part XII. of the ECU Faculty Manual);
b. unit strategic planning
progress reports during the review period; c. annual reports for the unit during the review period.
2. Statements
The administrative portfolio shall include a reflective statement describing
the officer-under-review’s:
a. administrative philosophy, strategies,
and methodologies;
b. attempted innovations and assessment of their
effectiveness;
c. a statement of objectives
for the future of the administrative unit;
d. a written summary statement
prepared by the officer under review
that documents his or her performance during the review period.
The summary statement shall address
the evaluation standards referenced in Section
H.2. above.