POLICY AND PROCESS

BOR POLICY

The Board of Regents’ Policy Manual outlines the annual evaluation process for academic administrative officers and also stipulates the following: “All academic administrative officers shall be evaluated by their subordinates (one level down) at least once every five years. Evaluation results will be the basis for the academic administrative officer’s development plan” ().

BOR 8.3.5.4. Post Tenure Review:

“Each institution shall also develop and implement procedures to conduct post-tenure reviews with tenured faculty members who hold administrative positions. These procedures shall address the distinctive nature of administrators’ work and leadership roles, include constituent feedback, and reflect that tenure is held in faculty positions not in administrative positions.”

VSU POLICY

This comprehensive evaluation is in addition to the annual evaluation conducted by the administrator’s supervisor.  For academic administrators with faculty rank, these evaluations are conducted on the same schedule and in the same format as the annual faculty evaluation (with two additional sections on administrative and leadership activities). These reviews follow the guidelines posted in VSU’s Faculty Evaluation Model (FEM). If a faculty-ranked administrator receives a “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” for two consecutive years, they may trigger an earlier comprehensive academic administrator evaluation.

Therefore, all VSU faculty-ranked academic administrators will be scheduled for a comprehensive administrative review on a regular schedule (3 years after initial non-interim appointment in their role and then every 5 years subsequently). These reviews will be organized and overseen by their immediate supervisor who will then share a general overview with that administrator’s unit and incorporate results in the administrator’s next annual evaluation.

RATIONALE FOR POLICY

This regular comprehensive process is designed as a formative process, not only to provide information needed for continuous improvement for the administrator and the unit but also to increase transparency about administrative roles and duties.

WHO WILL BE REVIEWED

Academic administrators subject to this review include any faculty-ranked administrator in the following roles: Provost, Assistant/Associate Provosts, Deans, Assistant/Associate Deans, Department Heads, and University-wide Directors (e.g. CELT, STEAM Center). These faculty-ranked administrators will not undergo post-tenure review as faculty members.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW?

This review will focus on the administrative role occupied by the faculty member, not to any faculty responsibilities. While administrators may be tenured in their faculty role, tenure does not exist for administrative positions, and academic administrators serve at the pleasure of their immediate supervisor. Thus the review will include an examination of all the responsibilities of the administrative position (including teaching).

HOW WILL THIS REVIEW BE CONDUCTED?

These reviews should be conducted to be as helpful as possible to the evaluated administrator and the unit.  Supervisors who are convening reviews should balance the needs and workload of the unit and its personnel while also ensuring a fair and useful process with confidentiality for all involved. 

WHO WILL CONDUCT THIS REVIEW?

According to the specified schedule, the immediate supervisor, in consultation with the administrator to be reviewed and the unit, will appoint and convene a three to five-person committee to conduct the review.  Depending on the person to be reviewed, these committee members may represent those supervised by the administrator (including faculty and staff), peers, or relevant outside constituents (alumni, community partners, etc.). The supervisor will also appoint a chair of this committee, ideally someone of equivalent rank to the administrator being reviewed.

At a first meeting, the supervisor should go over the process for the review and the projected timeline as well as remind committee members that their work is to be confidential.

WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER REVIEW REQUIRED TO SUBMIT?

This information should be publicly available to those in the administrator’s unit.

  • Position description, which could be from one of the following sources:
  • Job description, either the generic VSU Job Description available at /administration/finance-admin/human-resources/job-profiles.pdf or the specialized job description for this role.
  • VSU Statutes
  • College/Department/Division Mission Statement
  • A work performance self-assessment (summary of accomplishments and goals over the years included in the review). This assessment should not exceed 5 pages.
  • CV

WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COULD THE COMMITTEE COLLECT AND REVIEW?

This list outlines several different types of information and ways of gathering that information. Committees do not necessarily have to use all of these mentioned below. However, BOR Policy stipulates that administrators should, at a minimum, be evaluated by those whom they directly supervise. This information should be reviewed confidentially by the committee.

  • Annual goals as submitted by the supervisor
  • Written surveys of faculty, staff, students, alumni, community partners, and/or others
  • Interviews and/or focus groups
  • Signed letters of support
  • Results of a meeting with the administrator under review

WHAT IS THE TIMELINE FOR REVIEW?

Committees should complete their work during the fall semester. Supervisors may complete the remainder of their work early in the spring semester.

WHAT WORK DOES THE COMMITTEE PRODUCE?

The committee will provide a memo to the administrator’s supervisor and to the administrator answering two specific questions:

  • What accomplishments over the past five years of this administrator’s leadership are the most significant?
  • What recommendations could be made to improve this person’s administrative leadership?

This memo should not exceed 5 pages.

WHERE WILL THIS WORK RESIDE?

The committee’s memo and any supporting documentation should reside in a confidential electronic repository such as OneDrive.

WHAT IS THE SUPERVISOR’S ROLE?

After receiving the committee’s memo, the supervisor will review and discuss the memo with the administrator.  Results should be included as part of the annual evaluation for that year. The supervisor should also provide the administrator with goals and an action plan, or a remediation plan if needed, with clearly defined and specific goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

The supervisor and the administrator should then share an overview of the evaluation process and some general results, without violating confidentiality, with the administrator’s unit, either in writing or through a meeting.

HOW WILL THESE REVIEWS BE IMPLEMENTED?

Supervisors will develop an implementation schedule for faculty-ranked administrators in their unit, ensuring that a regular rotation will be in place within the next 3-5 years.

Revised June 28, 2022.