ARTICLE IX: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS

Section 1.  An evaluation of the President, the Senior vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, all Vice Presidents, all Associate Provosts, the Dean of each college/school, and the Dean of Libraries will be undertaken by faculty and staff at the end of the administrator’s third year in the first evaluation cycle and at least every five years thereafter, in accordance with the procedures and a schedule established by the University Senate. If an administrative appointment starts before the end of a calendar year (December 31 or earlier), that administrator will be scheduled for review at the end of the third academic year of service; if the administrative appointment begins after the start of the new calendar year (January 1 or after), then the review clock begins with the start of the next fiscal year (1 July of the year of hire) and the review will occur at the end of the third academic year following.  The purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to evaluate the progress of each administrator, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from faculty and other constituencies, to review the individual’s professional contributions and performance as a “leader” and as an “administrator”, and to provide feedback to improve his or her performance. Detailed procedures for the evaluation are developed by the Executive Committee of the University Senate in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate and adopted by the University Senate.
Section 2.  In those units that have chairs, Associate Deans shall be evaluated by the Dean with input from the appropriate faculty and staff of the unite at least every three years.  A College may determine how, if at all, to align review cycles of the Dean, associate deans, and/or other administrators.  The findings of this evaluation shall be considered in the Dean’s overall evaluation of the associate dean’s performance.  The purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to evaluate the progress of each administrator, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from faculty and other constituencies, to review the individual’s professional contributions and performance as a “leader” and as an “administrator”, and to provide feedback to improve his or her performance.