The provost wishing reappointment will be evaluated during the fifth year of service using a questionnaire distributed to all faculty and academic administrators. A committee of three elected from and by all academic deans will be involved in drafting the questionnaire in cooperation with the president. The committee will review the specific results of the evaluation in confidence with the president. A summary of the results of the evaluation will be given to the provost. Barring a request by the provost not to be reappointed, a summary of the results will be distributed to all academic deans, and department chairs, who will share them with their faculty. The reappointment decision will be made by the president; however, reappointment will normally be made in conformity with the judgment of the deans, and department chairs. The provost may be removed at any time by the president for cause.
Chapter 3339-12 | Evaluation and Reappointment
| Rule |
|---|
|
Rule 3339-12-02 | Appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of academic deans.
The deans of the Oxford campus academic divisions (academic deans) and the dean of the regional campuses are appointed by the president upon the recommendation of the provost. The person must normally be acceptable to the faculty and to a majority of the department chairs in the division or in the case of the dean of the regional campuses to the faculty, regional campus coordinators, and chairs of the regional campuses. Responsibilities of the academic dean are assigned by the provost. The initial term of appointment for an academic dean or dean of the regional campuses will be five years. A dean who has served an initial term may be reappointed for additional term(s), each term not to exceed five years. Formal evaluation must precede reappointment to any additional term. Academic deans or the dean of the regional campuses wishing reappointment will be evaluated during the final year of their appointment (including any years as interim or acting dean). Formal evaluation of each academic dean or dean of the regional campuses will be conducted by the all-university faculty committee for evaluation of administrators in accordance with this policy and by a separate administrative evaluation committee to engage those individuals directly responsible to the dean, colleagues, and other administrative constituents. For academic deans, the administrative evaluation committee will consist of three department chairs from that division, elected by the chairs. For dean of the regional campuses, the administrative evaluation committee will consist of three regional campus coordinators and/or chairs, elected by the regional campus coordinators and/or chairs from that campus. The administrative evaluation committee will develop the evaluation instrument in cooperation with the dean and the provost. The administrative evaluation committee will review the specific results of the evaluations in confidence with the provost. Barring a request by the academic deans or the dean of the regional campuses not to be reappointed, the evaluation will proceed as described in paragraph (D) of rule 3339-12-05 of the Administrative Code. Decisions concerning reappointment will be made by the president upon the recommendation of the provost. Reappointment of an academic dean will normally be made in conformity with the judgment of the faculty and department chairs of the division. Reappointment of the dean of the regional campuses will normally be made in conformity with the judgment of the faculty, regional campus coordinators, and chairs of that campus. If the recommendation for reappointment of an academic dean or the dean of the regional campuses is not in conformity with the judgment of faculty and chairs (and regional campus coordinators when applicable) a written explanation for the discrepancy shall be given. With the concurrence of the president, the provost may at any time reassign an academic dean or the dean of the regional campuses to the faculty. Reasons for reassignment include, but are not limited to, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner; violation of university rules, regulations or policies and/or directives of the board of trustees; and/or violation of professional ethics or commission of an illegal act. In the event the reasons supporting reassignment also constitute grounds for discipline or termination, the provost may, in addition to reassignment, pursue discipline or termination under rule 3339-8-03 of the Administrative Code. Supplemental Information |
|
Rule 3339-12-03 | Appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of department chairs.
Chairs of academic departments are appointed by the provost upon the recommendation of the appropriate academic dean. The academic dean shall make the recommendation following consultation with members of the department and chairs of the related departments; appointment should normally be in conformity with the department's judgment. Academic deans will consult with the dean of the regional campuses regarding the appointment of chairs for departments that are located on a regional campus. If the recommendation made by the academic dean for appointment or reappointment of a department chair is not in conformity with the department's judgment, the department shall be given a written explanation for the discrepancy. Responsibilities of the chair are assigned by the academic dean. The initial term of appointment for a department chair will be five years. A chair who has served an initial term may be reappointed for additional term(s), each term not to exceed five years. Formal evaluation must precede reappointment to any additional term. The results of such evaluations are then shared, by the appropriate dean, with the provost. With the concurrence of the provost, the academic dean may at any time reassign a department chair to the faculty. Reasons for reassignment include, but are not limited to, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner; violation of university rules, regulations or policies and/or directives of the board of trustees; and/or violation of professional ethics or commission of an illegal act. In the event the reasons supporting reassignment also constitute grounds for discipline or termination, the same may be pursued under rule 3339-8-03 of the Administrative Code. Supplemental Information |
|
Rule 3339-12-05 | All-university faculty committee for evaluation of administrators.
(A) Membership An all-university faculty committee for evaluation of administrators will review the provost, all academic deans, the associate provost for research and dean of the graduate school, the dean and university librarian, and the university director of liberal education in years three and five of their five-year administrative appointments. Committee reports are intended to serve two functions: (1) To guide the professional development of the individuals, and (2) To record part of the evidence upon which future personnel decisions may be based. The all-university faculty committee for evaluation of administrators (committee) will consist of eight members of the faculty assembly, one to be chosen by each division for a total of five, one to be chosen by the library faculty and one to be chosen by each of the regional campuses. The members of the committee will be elected by the faculty with election procedures to be set by the university senate. The committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chair. Members of the committee who are on probationary status (i.e., nontenured or who do not hold continuing contract status) are not eligible to serve as chair of the committee. In accordance with a university senate motion of November 5, 1990, the library faculty as well as the faculty of the regional campuses shall not be eligible as nominees or electors in the election of divisional representatives. Each member will serve a nonrenewable three-year term beginning July first of each year. The terms will be staggered so that one-third of the committee is elected each year. In the event of the resignation of a member of the committee before the end of his or her term, that seat shall be filled by the candidate (who had not been previously elected) who received the largest number of votes when the ballots are retabulated after votes for the person who has resigned have been deleted. In the event no such candidate is available, a new election will be held for the vacated seat. (B) Schedule Each fall semester, the committee shall prepare a questionnaire for the evaluation of each administrator it is scheduled to evaluate during the next academic year. Administrators in year five of their five-year administrative appointment will be evaluated in the fall semester of the evaluation year. Administrators in year three of their five-year appointment will be evaluated in the spring semester of the evaluation year. The committee shall distribute the questionnaire to members of faculty assembly assigned to or served by the administrator's unit, and it shall prepare an evaluation report to be submitted to the administrator's supervisor. (C) Evaluation questionnaires The committee shall develop a common core of questions appropriate for each class of administrators it is responsible for reviewing. For example, it shall develop a common core of questions for all deans of academic divisions. When developing these questions, the committee shall consult with the class of administrators to be reviewed and with their supervisor. All questionnaires shall be accompanied by a one-to-two-page statement from the administrator being evaluated that addresses the following questions: (1) What are your duties? (2) What have been your most significant accomplishments since occupying this position or since last you were evaluated in your current position? (3) What are your primary goals for the duration of your appointment? All questionnaires shall begin with a question that asks respondents whether they feel that they have sufficient information to evaluate the administrator; respondents who reply that they do not shall be asked to return the questionnaire with only that question completed. All questionnaires shall ask respondents who complete more than the first question to indicate the extent of their knowledge of the administrator's responsibilities and performance. When preparing to evaluate a particular administrator, the committee shall adapt the common core of questions to reflect this person's responsibilities and any special and unique aspects of the administrator's position or circumstances. In this process, the committee shall consult with the administrator to be reviewed and the administrator's supervisor. The final decision on the composition of the questionnaire rests with the committee. (D) Committee reports The committee's final evaluation reports shall be submitted by December first of each year for administrators evaluated in year five and by April fifteenth of each year for administrators evaluated in year three. Before then, the committee shall submit a draft of the report to the administrator's supervisor. The supervisor and the committee (or a representative) shall meet to discuss the draft report and make any modifications deemed appropriate by the committee. If the committee and the supervisor disagree on the final report, the supervisor may attach a letter to the committee report explaining the disagreement. This letter becomes part of the final report. In year three of an administrator's appointment, the committee's final report shall be promptly shared by the supervisor with the administrator being evaluated, and a summary of the committee's final report shall be prepared jointly by the supervising administrator and the committee. If the administrator is continuing in his or her position for at least one more year, this summary shall be submitted to the faculty within the unit. If the supervising administrator and the committee cannot agree on the summary, they shall prepare separate summaries which shall be distributed together to the faculty within the unit. In year five of an administrator's appointment, the all-university faculty committee shall cooperate with the evaluation committee established in "appointment, evaluation and reappointment of academic deans" or "evaluation and reappointment of the provost" of this manual. A summary of the final reports by the faculty committee and the committee established in "appointment, evaluation and reappointment of academic deans" or "evaluation and reappointment of the provost" of this manual shall be prepared jointly by the supervising administrator and the combined evaluation committees. This summary shall be submitted to the faculty within the unit if the administrator is reappointed for another five-year term. If the supervising administrator, the faculty committee, and the committee established in "appointment, evaluation and reappointment of academic deans" or "evaluation and reappointment of the provost" of this manual cannot agree on the summary, they shall prepare separate summaries which shall be distributed together to the faculty within the unit. The faculty committee's final reports and the summaries of these reports that are prepared jointly by the committee and the supervising administrator shall include the following information: (1) The number of surveys sent, response rate, the number of people indicating insufficient information to evaluate the administrator. (2) The mean and distribution of responses, if numerical data are reported. (3) A brief, balanced overview of the overall response to each question or set of questions, not quotations of the respondents' actual words (4) When the committee feels it is appropriate, separate analyses of responses from individuals who indicated that they have a more extensive knowledge of the administrator's responsibilities and performance and of responses from individuals who indicate that they have a less extensive knowledge of the administrator's responsibilities and performance. In addition, the faculty committee's fifth-year final report and the summary of it shall include the faculty committee's recommendation concerning whether the administrator should be reappointed for another five-year term. If an administrator is reappointed despite the faculty committee's recommendation against reappointment, the committee may call for a vote of no confidence from the appropriate faculty. In the case of the provost, the associate provost for research and dean of graduate school, and the dean and university librarian, the appropriate faculty unit for a vote of no confidence will be the faculty assembly. The supervisor and the administrator being evaluated shall have access to all of the faculty responses, including survey results and transcribed copies of comments. The committee shall retain the questionnaires returned by faculty for a period of three years from the date of the final evaluation report. (E) Election procedures for the all-university faculty committee for the evaluation of administrators A total of five nominees for each position will be chosen by the single transferable vote method from a complete list of all the eligible voters in each unit. Within no less than two weeks after the ballots for nominees have been returned a second ballot naming the nominees will be distributed to the voters in their respective units and again counted by the single transferable vote method. For mid-term resignation/vacancies, see paragraph (A) of this rule. Units may adopt alternative procedures with the approval of university senate. Supplemental Information |
|
Rule 3339-12-06 | Divisional faculty committee for evaluation of administrators.
In each division, a divisional faculty committee for evaluation of administrators will review all department chairs, and directors of academic programs in years three and five of their five-year administrative appointments. Divisions may decide to conduct more frequent reviews; departments and programs may ask divisions to conduct more frequent reviews. The divisional faculty committee for evaluation of administrators will consist of three to nine faculty elected by faculty of the division with election procedures approved by the university senate. The divisional faculty committee for evaluation of administrators will seek evaluations from faculty represented by the administrative unit and will prepare an evaluation report to be submitted to the dean. Committee reports are intended to serve two functions: to guide the professional development of the individuals, and to record part of the evidence upon which future personnel decisions may be based. The provisions outlined above regarding the evaluation questionnaires and the committee reports apply to the evaluations conducted by divisional committees for evaluation of administrators, except that the divisional committees do not interact with committees established to evaluate the academic deans or provost. Supplemental Information |
|
Rule 3339-12-07 | Evaluation of other academic administrators.
Other academic administrators will be evaluated every five years by those individuals served by or responsible to the administrator, and by the administrator's peers. The results of the evaluation will be shared by the administrator's superior with the administrator and the evaluators. Any academic administrator may be removed at any time by the president for cause. Supplemental Information |