TEXT OF PRESIDENT McCORMICK'S JULY 13, 2010
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHARGE A-0812, PART I, EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC DEANS:
I am
writing in response to the Report and Recommendations on Charge A-0812 Part I on the Evaluation of
Academic Deans, as adopted by the University Senate on March 26, 2010. I thank the members of the Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee for their timely attention to
this issue.
My administration is pleased to accept
the Senate's two main revisions to the 2004 evaluation policy, namely to make
the survey instrument mandatory for all evaluations, and to shift the timing of
the first evaluation of newly appointed deans to after four years of service rather
than after five years. Please note that
with respect to the latter recommendation, it may be necessary to phase in the
four-year review of new deans on one or more of the campuses in order to allow
for a manageable number of evaluations to take place in any given year,
particularly given the suspension of reviews during AY 2009-10 while the Senate
Committee considered revisions to the process.
The Senate’s recommended wording changes
throughout the document related to constituent input during the evaluation,
feedback of evaluation results to the community, and responsibilities for
survey implementation and analysis all help to clarify the details of the
process that earlier evaluation committees found confusing. The addition of a one-semester timeline for
the evaluation also is welcome. We also are
pleased to accept two additional recommendations of the Senate, with slight
modification. The first of these calls
for the dean being evaluated to submit a brief statement of responsibilities
and accomplishments, as well as the dean’s vision and strategic plan for the
unit. On the New Brunswick campus this document should be
requested by the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, as the revised
document suggests. However, on the Newark and Camden campuses, the dean
should receive the request for this document from the Chancellors. The second recommendation to be accepted in
slightly revised form relates to the dean’s response to the draft evaluation
report.
The document
now specifies that the evaluation committee should have access to the dean’s response
but will not act on it. This language
should be amended to allow modification to the original evaluation report in
response to the dean’s reply, particularly in cases where the dean has pointed
out to the committee errors of fact or interpretation.
With these slight modifications, the
revised process should serve the university well as we proceed to conduct
decanal reviews on all three campuses. I
appreciate the thoroughness of the committee’s deliberations and the care taken
in crafting the revised language, ensuring an improved process with benefit to
deans, their constituents, and the university administration.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. McCormick
c: Philip Furmanski, Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs
Steve Diner, Chancellor-Newark Campus
Wendell
Pritchett, Chancellor-Camden Campus