Administrative Policies

AD14 Academic Administrative Evaluation

Policy Status: 

Active

Policy Steward: 

Vice President for Administration

Contents:

  • Purpose
  • Definition
  • Process
  • Guidelines
  • Further Information
  • PURPOSE:

    To describe the organization and functioning of an academic administrative office, and to provide for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the leadership in carrying out the functions of the office, in light of the organization and other factors which may impinge on the office.

    To provide assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the operations of that office and its incumbent leadership for the purpose of improving the functioning of the office.

    To make recommendations, as deemed appropriate, to the next highest academic administrative officer based on the information developed on the organization and functioning of an academic administrative office and the resulting evaluation of the effectiveness of the leadership of that office. The recommendations are to be directed at the improvement of the office and its leadership. If there are instances where a change in leadership is proposed, this information is to be included. However, it is the prerogative of the next highest administrative officer to make decisions regarding a possible change in leadership.

    DEFINITION:

    For the purpose of this policy, an academic administrative office is one which reports directly or indirectly to either the Executive Vice President and Provost or the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the College of Medicine. In addition to Vice Presidents', Academic Deans, and Chancellors, such offices shall include the following: offices of Assistant and Associate Vice Presidents; Assistant and Associate Deans; Department or Division Heads; Directors of Research Units; and Directors of Academic Affairs at the non-University Park locations.

    PROCESS:

    Because of the diversity of the University, the specific process for periodic review of academic administrative officers and their offices is not prescribed for each unit.

    Each academic administrative officer directly responsible to either the Executive Vice President and Provost or the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the College of Medicine shall, in consultation with either the Executive Vice President and Provost or the Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the College of Medicine and the appropriate administrative and faculty groups for this office, develop a process for the review of those academic administrative officers and their offices reporting to him or her within guidelines listed below.

    The processes shall without exception include mechanisms whereby a central office at the provost’s level, as well as faculty of the pertinent unit shall be informed when the review is started, when the review is completed, and that the next highest academic administrative officer has been informed of the results of the review and has prepared and distributed a summary to faculty and staff in the academic unit.

    GUIDELINES:

    Academic administrative officers and their offices ordinarily shall be reviewed at regular intervals. The offices of Deans and their Associate or Assistant Deans, as well as Chancellors and the Directors ofAcademic Affairs, may be scheduled for simultaneous or separate reviews. Such reviews, however, shall be conducted in addition to conventional annual evaluations. The typical period between reviews shall be five years; however, some flexibility is afforded depending upon circumstances. It is always desirable to initiate an exit review when a principal academic office is vacated, e.g., by resignation or retirement, or when significant changes are proposed.

    Responsibility for initiating and implementing the periodic review of academic administrative officers and their offices rests with the administrator at the next highest level.

    Academic members of the unit being reviewed shall be significantly involved in the review process. Appropriate academic members from other related units, and academic administrative peers, are recommended to be included in the review process.

    The general results of the review shall be made known to the responsible academic administrative officer by the next highest academic administrative officer. Within 30 days, the administrator under review shall submit a response concerning actions taken, underway, and planned. In general terms that do not violate the confidentiality of the review or the incumbent’s response, the administrator supervising the review shall prepare a summary of the major findings and the incumbent’s objectives and goals for the next five years. This summary shall be distributed to faculty and staff in the academic unit. Confidentiality of personnel evaluations shall be maintained.

    As part of the conventional annual review referenced above, each administrator shall submit to his or her supervisor a progress report based on the five-year goals enumerated in his or her most recent AD14 review or if prior to the administrator’s first AD14 review, goals outlined in consultation with his or her supervisor.

    FURTHER INFORMATION:

    For questions, additional detail, or to request changes to this policy, please contact the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

    Effective Date: November 14, 2014
    Date Approved: October 21, 2014
    Date Published: November 14, 2014

    Most recent changes:

    • November 14, 2014 - Both the 'PROCESS' and 'GUIDELINES' sections were updated to reflect recommendations for improvement to the academic administrative evaluation process, as recommended by the University Faculty Senate. Also, policy steward information has been added, in the event that there are questions or requests for changes to the policy.

    Revision History (and effective dates):

    • September 4, 2007 - Editorial changes; changed 'Campus Executive Officer' to 'Chancellor.'
    • June 15, 2006 - Revision History added.
    • March 15, 1999 - Both the 'DEFINITION' and 'PROCESS' sections were changed to state that an academic administrative office(r) reports/is responsible to EITHER the Executive Vice President and Provost OR The Senior Vice President for Health Affairs and the Dean of the College of Medicine, as applicable, in carrying out this evaluation process.
    • March 17, 1997 - Position Titles updated. Revisions to "Requesting An Exceptional Use" section.
    • August 1, 1994 - Academic Administrative Evaluation - The title of Dr. Brighton was corrected from "Executive Vice Provost," to "Executive Vice President and Provost." Also, reference to Directors of Academic Affairs at the "campuses" was revised to "Non-University Park locations."
    • February 26, 1988 - Major Revisions.
    • November 9, 1983 - Position title changes.