Faculty Senate Evaluation Coordinating Committee

Guidelines and Suggested Procedures for the ECC

(2004)

Approved by Faculty Senate Executive Committee on 4/20/2004

At its first meeting, the committee decides which senior administrator to evaluate. The list of eligible administrators is defined in two documents: the 1994 “structure and procedures” and the 1996-97 “resolutions.” With the evolution of position titles and responsibilities, the ECC needs to review the list of those senior administrators “who have significant responsibilities involving them in the academic program.” The ECC believes that these currently include, but are not limited to, the President, the Provost, the Vice President for Research, the Deans, the Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, the Director of Libraries, the Director of HPEA, the Associate Vice President for Computing and Educational Technology, and the Director of Continuing Education and Summer Programs.

In evaluating a Dean, see the 1996-97 resolutions: “When the natural faculty constituency of an administrator is the faculty of one college, the evaluation shall be organized where possible by the faculty of that college, with the ECC playing a coordinating role. In the case of Harpur College of Arts and Sciences, the ECC shall convene a meeting of the Faculty Senators from that college and request them to elect a committee consisting of faculty of that college or organize the evaluation.”

The ECC elects a chair at its first meeting. The chair informs the administrator being evaluated and requests documentation. Materials may include a job description, a condensed resume, and a narrative self-evaluation guided by the areas to be evaluated. This information will be shared with the faculty in a general evaluation or with the department evaluating committees in a college evaluation. The ECC may also review other documentation relative to the evaluation; it may solicit data from other academic administrators and appropriate external sources.

The ECC designs a questionnaire for general evaluations based on models in the Faculty Senate files and on the instrument (adapted from Miller et al) in the 1994 “structure and procedures.” The questionnaire is sent to the natural faculty constituency of the administrator.

The ECC will collect reports from all individuals in a general evaluation and from all department evaluation committees in a college evaluation. The ECC will compile all reports into a final report, which will contain:

1. a summary of the process used to generate the report
2. a summary of all department evaluation committee reports where applicable
3. a sum total of the faculty vote for and against renewal, where appropriate.

The report will not include individual department evaluation committee reports or specific references to departments, units, or individual writers. When it includes quotations from written comments, the writer’s anonymity will be protected. All reports remain confidential.

The ECC report is forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, to the administrator being evaluated, and to that person’s immediate supervisor. The administrator may submit commentary in response to the ECC, including reports solicited by the administrator from within or outside the university. The ECC will forward these commentaries to all recipients of its original report.

When an administrator who was evaluated leaves the university, the Faculty Senate secretary shreds that person's evaluation.

The ECC has no other responsibilities.

---

ADDENDUM

October 9, 1997

Faculty Senate Evaluation Coordinating Committee

Resolutions Passed in 1996-97

· Faculty evaluations of administrators whose natural faculty constituency is the whole faculty shall be conducted by the Evaluation Coordinating Committee. The resolution passed unanimously at the 12/10/96 Faculty Senate meeting.

· That the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will review each evaluation of a senior administrator as carried out, or coordinated by, the Evaluation Coordinating Committee. The resolution passed with two abstentions at the 02/11/97 Faculty Senate meeting.

· The senior administrators to be evaluated by the faculty under the general supervision of the Evaluation Coordinating Committee are those who have significant responsibilities involving them in the academic program. These include, but are not limited to, the President, the Provost, the Deans and Vice Provosts, the Associate Vice President for Computing and Educational Technology, and the Directors of Libraries and Health, Physical Education, and Athletics. The resolution passed unanimously at the 03/04/97 Faculty Senate meeting.

· When the natural faculty constituency of an administrator is the faculty of one college, the evaluation shall be organized where possible by the faculty of that college, with the Evaluation Coordinating Committee playing a coordinating role. In the case of Harpur College of Arts and Sciences, the Evaluation Coordinating Committee shall convene a meeting of the Faculty Senators from that college and request them to elect a committee consisting of faculty of that college to organize the evaluation. The resolution passed unanimously at the 04/29/97 Faculty Senate meeting.

---

Faculty Evaluation of University Administrators: Structure and Procedures

I. Charge and Provisions

On October 25, 1994, the Faculty Senate of the State University of New York at Binghamton voted to establish a system for evaluation of the performance of University administrators. The charge and provisions are as follows:

Evaluation of Academic Officers. The faculty shall conduct periodic evaluations

of the President, the Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, and the Deans and Directors of academic units. The Faculty Senate shall appoint faculty committees for this purpose except for the evaluation of Deans or Directors of those academic units which have procedures for their evaluation by the faculty.

a. The final reports of these committees will be confidential and distributed only to 1. the administrator being evaluated; 2. that administrator’s immediate supervisor; and 3. Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

b. The Faculty Senate from time to time shall review the criteria by which academic officers are evaluated and the frequency of such evaluations.

c. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall provide in a timely manner detailed guidance for evaluation procedures.

II. Strategy

In accord with the provisions above, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee has devised procedures for the evaluation of academic officers. The strategy employed is to establish procedures which: a. are pertinent to administrative performance as it affects the predominant faculty interest in learning and research; b. provide ample opportunities for the administrator being evaluated to submit information appropriate for evaluation of performance; c. identify opportunities for the administrator being evaluated to comment on the final report of the Evaluation Coordinating Committee; d. maximize opportunities for faculty participation in the process; e. provide an unambiguous expression of faculty judgment of the performance of the administrator in question, the rationale for that judgment and a recommendation for renewal, or non-renewal.

To secure these objectives and to maximize their achievement the system of evaluation has been adapted from aspects of the process followed in the evaluation of faculty for the purpose of contract renewal and tenure. Familiarity with existing personnel procedures combined with broad and knowledgeable participation of the faculty through the delegation of evaluative tasks to departments or equivalent units of appropriate schools will provide an intelligible report within a reasonable amount of time. Structure, procedures, evaluation dimensions and timetable are specified in Sections II-V.

III. Committee Structure and Procedures

A. THE EVALUATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE

1. Composition

a. The Evaluation Coordinating Committee (ECC) will consist of nine full-time Faculty Senate members chosen by secret ballot from the entire Senate. The final composition of the ECC will include a representative from the Decker School of Nursing; the School of Management; the School of Education and Human Development; the Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science; the Library; Health, Physical Education, Athletics; and three representatives from Harpur College of Arts and Sciences including one member each from the Division of Humanities, Science and Mathematics, and Social Sciences. All members of the Faculty Senate will be eligible as committee members unless they specifically request that they not be considered. The request to not be considered should be made to the Chair of the Faculty Senate at least two weeks prior to the election.

b. Except for the Spring semester of 1995 ECC members will serve for two years coincident with their tenure as members of the Faculty Senate. The term for 5 of the 9 members will be one and one half years and the remaining 4 members will serve the Spring semester of 1995. ECC members elected in the Fall semester of 1995 will serve a full two year term.

2. Duties and Responsibilities

a. Upon notification by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the ECC will inform the administrator to be evaluated and all Department Evaluation Committees (DECs) participating in the evaluation. Notification of DECs will include: 1) information respecting the duties of the DEC based on Section B. (the DEC); 2) the person being evaluated and the position occupied; 3) the evaluation packet described in Section IV and 4) a timetable of evaluation events.

b. The ECC will request documentation from the administrator under review. Materials will include a current vita, job description, and a narrative self-evaluation guided by the five areas to be evaluated specified in part IV B. This information will be shared with the relevant Department Evaluation Committees (DEC). The ECC may also review other documentation relative to the criteria for evaluation that may be solicited including data from other academic administrators and appropriate external sources.

c. The ECC will collect the reports from all Department Evaluation Committees (DEC). They will ensure that the DEC reports consist both of a textual summary as well as a vote by all full-time faculty within that department or equivalent unit concerning renewal or non-renewal of the administrator in question.

d. The ECC will compile all reports from the relevant departments and equivalent units into the final report. This report will contain the following:

1. A summary of the process used to generate the report

2. A summary of all DEC reports

3. A sum total of the faculty vote for or against renewal

e. This report will not include individual DEC reports and no references will be made to any specific department or unit. All reports will remain confidential.

f. The ECC reports will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Committee, to the administrators being evaluated, and to their immediate supervisors.

g. The ECC will receive commentaries, if submitted, from administrators once they have received their evaluations. Commentaries can include reports solicited by the administrator being evaluated from within or outside the University. The ECC will forward these commentaries to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee as well as to the superiors who received the final report.

h. The ECC will not have responsibilities beyond those which are described herein.

B. THE DEPARTMENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE

1. Participation

a. The participation of DECs is determined by the jurisdiction of the administrator being evaluated, e.g. the Decker School of Nursing DEC participates in the evaluation of the Dean of that school, all DECs participate in the evaluation of the Provost, etc.

2. Composition

a. Each department or equivalent will select a Department Evaluation Committee. The DEC will be composed of full-time faculty and the organization of this group will be left to the discretion of each department or equivalent unit.

3. Duties and Responsibilities

a. The DEC will solicit written documents and other information from individual faculty concerning the performance of each administrator. These documents are confidential and will be available only to the voting members of the department. The DEC will organize a meeting of the department voting faculty and will draft the narrative section of the evaluation report and the results of the vote taken for or against renewal. The DEC will establish a committee to review and discuss the information collected.

b. The DEC vote on each administrator being evaluated shall be phrased in the following manner:

1. Yes, renewal supported

2. No, renewal not supported

3. Abstain

c. The DEC will forward both the narrative report and the final vote (see 3.b.) to the ECC.

IV. Criteria for Evaluation of Academic Administrators

A. INTRODUCTION

The starting point for the evaluation any administrator is the job description for the position occupied by the administrator. This description can be obtained from the immediate supervisor, the original announcement of the help wanted advertisement, the perceptions of those being supervised and/or from the person being evaluated. The Evaluation Coordinating Committee (ECC) should obtain this documentation and pass it on to the Department Evaluation Committees (DEC).

There is a fairly extensive literature on evaluation administrators. Furthermore, this evaluation process has been done by a number of colleges and universities. Therefore, we can borrow from what has been used by other institutions and tailor it to the specific administrator being evaluated and to Binghamton University.

We suggest that, in general, the administrator be evaluated over the following dimensions: communication skills, leadership, human relations, knowledge, expertise and organizational skills. A generic instrument will be provided to the ECC to measure each of these dimensions. The ECC should determine what dimensions are appropriate for the evaluation (add or delete as needed) and how to tailor the instrument for the particular evaluation. This evaluation packet should then be sent to the DECs to use as a guide for their evaluation (a suggested way of evaluating). This approach does not preclude the DECs from choosing alternative means of evaluation or of modifying the ECC’s approach. However, all DECs will report the results of a vote for or against renewal.

B. EVALUATION INSTRUMENT* (adapted from Sharon Miller et.al. “Evaluating Administrators: Designing the Process in a Shared Governance Environment”)

I. COMMUNICATION SKILLS – An individual with strong communication skills regularly exhibits the ability to inform and persuade others in oral and written communication, is clear and forthright, listens well and is receptive to the ideas of others.

Provide a narrative evaluation of job performance. Then describe specific performance categories.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT:

In addition to the narrative statement, DEC’s may choose to employ fixed format items for assessment of this individual’s performance in each area:

Writing Skills: To what extent does this administrator communicate with clarity and persuasiveness in written messages?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Speaking Skills: To what extent does this administrator communicate with clarity and persuasiveness in oral messages and in non-verbal behavior?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Listening and Receptivity Skills: To what extent is this an individual who listens carefully, is receptive to faculty, and incorporates the shared ideas of faculty members?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Encourages Dialogue and Understanding: To what extent does this administrator exhibit respect for faculty members and demonstrate the ability to encourage dialogue?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

II. LEADERSHIP – An individual with strong leadership skills promotes faculty consensus, exhibits creativity and takes initiative while maintaining credibility, makes decisions based upon sound judgment, and considers implications and alternatives.

Provide a narrative evaluation of job performance. Then describe specific performance categories.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT:

Vision and Motivation: To what extent does this administrator exhibit a highly developed sense of vision and innovation while being receptive to the innovative capacities of faculty?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator inspire faculty members within the institution?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator exhibit high personal standards of fairness, enthusiasm, honesty, accomplishment, etc.?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Problem Solving: To what extent does this administrator provide cohesive support of faculty efforts in the areas of learning and research?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator participate in creative problem solving, making decisions based upon perceptive evaluation and appropriate institutional research?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator consistently encourage collaboration with faculty?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

III. HUMAN RELATIONS – An individual with strong human relation skills inspires the confidence of others, creates opportunities for faculty collaboration, supports collegial processes that produce a collaborative environment, is diplomatic, creates and maintains positive/productive relationships with faculty members.

Provide a narrative evaluation of job performance. Then describe specific performance categories.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT:

Collegiality: To what extent does this administrator provide for collaboration with the faculty resulting in effective planning and decision making?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Productive Relationships: To what extent does this administrator demonstrate effectiveness and diplomacy in working well with faculty and in maintaining positive productive relationships?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Sensitivity and Supportive Attitude: To what extent does this administrator demonstrate sensitivity to the needs and abilities of faculty?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator help resolve disputes while maintaining harmonious and productive relationships with the faculty?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

IV. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE – An individual with strong commitment to service has in-depth knowledge or technical expertise in one of the areas or disciplines for which he or she is responsible.

Provide a narrative evaluation of job performance. Then describe specific performance categories.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT:

Professional knowledge and expertise: To what extent does this administrator possess an understanding of the service area for which he or she is responsible?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Community and Professional Service: To what extent does this administrator provide expertise in support of faculty committees?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

To what extent does this administrator exhibit his or her knowledge or expertise available for problem solving?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Professional Growth: To what extent has this administrator developed a well-integrated plan for development of knowledge and expertise appropriate to the service area?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

V. ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS – An individual with strong organizational skills, plans, organizes, and operates by promoting cooperation and consensus in accord with faculty authority and responsibilities, current institutional plans and goals; helps set priorities clearly and integrates them effectively.

Provide a narrative evaluation of job performance. Then describe specific performance categories.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT:

Planning/Organization: To what extent does this administrator promote cooperation and consensus to achieve institutional plans/goals?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Priority Setting/Action: To what extent does this administrator work with the faculty to set priorities clearly and integrate priority setting with action on the basis of the importance of the issue?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

Effective Operation: To what extent does this individual help identify and develop human resources and institutional strategies useful to the faculty?

Above At Below Not

Expectation Expectation Expectation Observed

____ ____ ____ ____

V. Timetable

Academic administrators will be evaluated at least once every four years although the evaluation process can be initiated at an earlier time. This review is initiated by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and execution of the evaluation is the responsibility of the Evaluation Coordinating Committee (ECC).

Scheduling

The evaluation process for each person being evaluated will be initiated and completed in either the Fall or Spring semester of the academic year. The chair of the ECC will review the number of cases under consideration and establish a reasonable and equitable timeframe for each evaluation. Deadlines for all requested documentation and reports will be provided in writing to those participating in the review. It is anticipated that the ECC Chair will meet with the administrator under consideration to outline the evaluation procedures and to request materials, as described in Section III.A.2a, that will be used in the performance review. The ECC chair will also contact departments and equivalent units to inform them of the evaluation, provide evaluation packets, share documentation received from the candidate, provide a timetable and request DEC reports. The ECC will compile and issue a report as outline in Section I, Provision a. of the Evaluation of Academic Officers. The person being evaluated has the option if submitting a written response to the ECC chair after that committee has filed its report. If submitted, a copy of this response shall be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

SAMPLE TIMETABLE

Feb. 3, 1995 ECC Chair receives notice of an evaluation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee

ECC Chair meets with administrator

ECC informs DECs of impending evaluation

ECC provides DECs with evaluation packet and timetable

Feb. 24, 1995 Deadline for materials from administrator to ECC (upon receipt sent to DECs by ECC chair)

Mar. 17, 1995 Deadline for DEC reports to ECC

Mar. 31, 1995 ECC Committee compiles and distributes report as outline in the Faculty Senate’s Evaluation of Academic Officers, section a.

Apr. 14, 1995 Optional candidate response to ECC Chair regarding the process or substance of the evaluation

January 31, 1995