Academic Policy 1407.20
Guidelines for Review of Deans
The dean of each academic unit shall be reviewed periodically, not more than five
years after the initial appointment or latest reappointment. In addition to the periodic
review, each dean shall be reviewed whenever in the judgment of the provost such a
review is deemed necessary. While administrative staff members are evaluated annually
by their supervisors, the five-year review (commencing in the fall of the fifth year)
will constitute a broader and more formal review. These guidelines are intended to
provide procedures whereby an assessment can be made of the accomplishments of the
dean and the unit led by the dean and balance the assessments of past performance
with recommendations that may improve the quality of administration or the unit.
Prior to commencing the review process, the provost and chancellor will inform the
dean if they are interested in considering the dean for reappointment. The dean should
also inform the administration if he or she is interested in reappointment. If the
answer is no to either proposition, then a review for reappointment is not needed.
Prior to an agreeing to a review, the provost will meet with the dean to clarify procedures
and answer questions the dean may have about the impending review. The provost will
subsequently develop a plan for the review, which will take one of three courses:
1) a limited review with selected key constituent groups conducted by the provost,
2) a more formal process as outlined below, or 3) a combination of the two aforementioned
reviews. The choice of options one, two or three is not meant to signal a specific
anticipated outcome or concerns about the operation of the academic unit. Rather,
review options will be invoked based on the best interests of the unit and the University.
Regarding review option two, the provost will form a review committee with a membership
usually in the range of seven to nine members. The provost will solicit nominations
from the Academic Deans and from the faculty and staff of the unit for membership
on the committee. The chair, appointed by the provost, will hold a position outside
the unit. The committee shall include at least one department chair (when relevant)
and one student from the unit of the dean under review and at least one faculty/staff
member from outside the unit.
The provost will ask the dean to prepare a statement for the committee with the following
items: a description of her or his responsibilities, a summary of the principal accomplishments
over the period since the last review or initial appointment and a description of
how these accomplishments mesh with the University’s and the unit’s goals, a brief
report on major plans and challenges for the next several years, and a list of names
(not to exceed ten) of individuals both local and national who are familiar with his
or her work as dean. Additional items may be added if needed. This document will form
the initial working document for the committee. Unit annual reports submitted for
each of the five years will constitute appendices.
The committee will meet initially with the provost to review the charge. The dean’s
statement will be provided to each committee member and copies of the annual reports
will be provided in a place convenient for committee members to consult either in
the provost’s office or the reserve desk in the Mullins Library. The principal charge
to the committee will be to prepare for the provost a report on the performance of
the dean and of the unit under his or her leadership. The report should not be lengthy
and should be designed to address three questions: (1) What accomplishments, administrative
or programmatic, over the past five years are most significant? (2) What present challenges
to the unit appear most significant or deserving of attention? and (3) What recommendations
can be offered to the dean and provost in regard to administrative style, policies,
or procedures to improve unit performance and administration? Although the committee
will develop its methods, the process followed must include input from the following:
1) chairs of departments (when relevant), 2) the dean’s immediate staff (whether as
a group or individually), 3) university administrators who have working relationships
with the dean, 4) a sample of faculty/staff leadership in the unit, and 5) student
groups affiliated with the unit. The committee shall also establish some form of reporting
from chairs of unit committees, faculty, staff and, when appropriate, external constituencies
and alumni. Individual forms, surveys, letters, notes, and other raw data should not
be part of the report. Within 90 days from its initial meeting, the committee shall
submit a concise and focused report addressing the three questions identified above
and making such recommendations as the committee considers appropriate. Strict confidentiality
will be observed.
The committee will meet with the provost to review and clarify points in the report,
as needed. Following the meeting with the review committee and a follow-up session
with representative faculty—to discuss the dean’s and unit performance during the
past five years—a copy of the report will be provided to the dean. The provost will
meet with the dean to discuss the contents of the report and consideration of changes,
if any, to be made. Written response to the report by the dean reviewed and the review
committee’s report will be used to consult with the chancellor regarding reappointment.
Reappointment or alternative decisions (e.g., reappointment for a shorter term, or
non- reappointment) shall be the collective decision of the provost and the chancellor,
following possible consultation with the review committee. The provost will report
to the faculty of the unit involved, summarizing the results of the review, within
30 days of receiving the report.
Reformatted for Web October 2, 2014 3/1/05 (/policies/140720-20050301.pdf)
