Introduction
The Committee was transmitted the following charge:
Study the possibility of re-instituting the evaluations of administrators by faculty. Determine whether other AAU universities have such review procedures in place, and if those procedures are working. Determine which administrative levels would be included in a review procedure. Create a possible format for administrative review that would include faculty input.The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and Personnel has been asked to consider the recommendation by the New Brunswick Faculty Council that a system of reviewing administrators be developed that would involve faculty. The Committee was aided substantially by information collected for the Faculty Council last year by Professor Charles Fay. The information indicated that several AAU universities, such as the Universities of California (systemwide), Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina/Chapel Hill, Missouri, Oregon, and Michigan State and Ohio State Universities, among others, have systems for involving faculty in the review of administrators. Based upon this information, the New Brunswick Faculty Council recommended that a system of administrative review be developed in which faculty input was obtained. The Senate Faculty Affairs and Personnel Committee was then given the charge reproduced above.
The committee discussed the NB Faculty Council’s recommendation. The committee also discussed with the campus provosts and University Vice President for Academic Affairs the present system for evaluating deans. Input was also solicited from the deans. In light of these discussions, the committee proposes that a system for providing faculty, student, staff, and other input into the evaluation of deans be developed. The program, if successful, might be used also to review other academic administrators. The committee does not intend for the proposed evaluation system to be a replacement for the annual evaluations of deans done by their supervising administrators, but to be an additional source of data to aid in that process. The committee also believed that student leaders should have an opportunity to provide feedback on the performance of deans.
Committee Recommendation
The committee proposes that a process involving faculty, student, and other input be created for the regular review of all deans with line authority in the University. This process is to include all deans reporting directly to the provosts, or to the University Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the deans of the undergraduate multipurpose colleges in New Brunswick. Each such dean shall be reviewed by this process no less frequently than every five years, in order to provide input to the supervising administrator of the reviewee as to his/her performance.
The unit faculty, in consultation with the dean, the appropriate provost or vice president, and appropriate student leaders, will determine the form and content of the evaluation. It is expected that the faculty of the unit, the dean, and the provost or vice president shall work together to identify and mutually agree upon criteria for evaluating the dean. In addition to any unit-specific questions or criteria established through this collaborative process, units will include in the review process evaluations of the dean in the following areas, as appropriate to the individual unit:
The information and views gathered during the evaluation process will be used by the supervisor of the deans (either the provosts in Newark and Camden or the University Vice President for Academic Affairs in New Brunswick). Results should be used to provide feedback to the dean on his or her areas of strength and areas in which development may be needed.
The University will support the development and administration, through a neutral, independent office such as the Teaching Excellence Center, of a brief, but secure, survey instrument that can be administered and scored online, and requiring secure access for faculty and other reviewers. Provision will be made for narrative comments as well as a series of multiple-choice evaluations. The multiple choice evaluations will include the five performance areas listed above, plus any unit-specific additions from the unit faculty. Analysis of the data will be programmed so that summary and other statistics will be standard outputs, along with an anonymous listing of the narrative comments. This summary of respondents’ input is all that will be made available to those having access to survey results. The system must provide secure access and privacy assurances for the faculty, students and other respondents. For units using the online survey, nonelectronic copies of the survey instrument will be provided to faculty, students or staff who do not wish to participate in the electronic version, and the unit will need to determine how to protect the confidentiality of those respondents and how to ensure that their views are included in the overall evaluation. Response rates for the survey by type of respondent (faculty, student, staff, other) should be reported along with the survey results.
The faculty of units may opt not to use the online survey, but will need to ensure, through the collaborative planning process described above, that meaningful faculty, student and staff input is received, and that the process provides for anonymity for respondents who so wish. Any alternative process must include evaluation of the five performance areas listed above, if appropriate to that unit. Alternate methods of conducting the evaluation could include discussion that is summarized in narrative form (much like the departmental narratives used in faculty personnel decisions), or letters and communications from individuals commenting on the dean’s performance, as long as the anonymity of the individuals responding can be preserved, if desired by the respondents. Units are encouraged to use qualitative as well as quantitative data in the evaluation process.
The results of the survey will be provided to the dean, the supervisor of the dean, the President of the University, and the chair of the University Senate. It is expected that the results will be confidential and that those with access to the results will respect that confidentiality.
Although this policy is intended to apply to deans in units with faculty
positions, the process proposed herein for academic deans should also recognize
the unique role and responsibilities of the deans of the multipurpose undergraduate
colleges, where the fellows will play the role of the faculty in the process.
Performance standards that are responsive to the unique roles of the deans
of the multipurpose undergraduate colleges should be developed.
RESOLUTION
In Support of Committee Report and Recommendations
Whereas, the University Senate’s Faculty Affairs and Personnel Committee has examined and reported on the evaluation of administrators by faculty and students; and
Whereas, the University Senate has reviewed the Committee’s report and its recommendations, finding those recommendations to be sound and in the best interests of Rutgers University;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Rutgers University Senate endorses the Report on Evaluation of Administrators by Faculty and Students, and urges the Administration to implement its Recommendations.