Á½ÐÔÉ«ÎçÒ¹

1. General goals of an administrative review.
   1. Gauge accomplishment. A proper review requires the officer to make a thorough self-evaluation, as well as a program assessment, highlighting accomplishments, problems, solutions, and prognoses for future operations.
   2. Display success. The review affords an opportunity for focusing the university's attention on the real successes of the administrator's tenure. If properly handled, the response and report portion of the review can contribute to increased awareness of accomplishments.           
   3. Expose hidden problems. In any administrator's daily exercise of authority, misunderstandings as well as problems of real substance can occur but never be brought to the administrator's attention. A review should create an environment in which reviewers can reveal hidden problems and potentially disruptive ones. The ultimate goal is the resolution of those problems in a way that best serves the interests of the university community.
2. Specific objectives of the review. Principal efforts should be directed toward ascertaining the officer's administrative performance in terms of management effectiveness and leadership capacity: for example, quality and competence of work, use of resources and ability to give direction to the unit while encouraging the scholarly interests of the unit. In both management and leadership, the officer's concrete accomplishments should be elicited from the individual being reviewed, as well as from those surveyed.
3. Persons to be reviewed and evaluated.
   1. The academic administrative officers to be reviewed are the provost, the the dean of the regional college, the deans of the colleges and independent schools, the dean for undergraduate studies, the dean of graduate studies, the dean of the honors college, dean of the university libraries, and the deans of the regional campuses.
   2. Evaluation of the performance of the president is the responsibility of the Kent state university board of trustees.
   3. The reviews of the academic administrative officers listed in paragraph (C)(1) of this rule shall be conducted according to the following procedures: 
4. Procedures. 
   1. Frequency.
      1. Regular reviews. The periodic review process shall normally occur in the fourth year but no later than the fifth year unless it is initiated earlier by special request. The office of the provost shall maintain a review calendar for deans and associate provosts and shall notify the faculty senate committee on administrative officers at the start of the academic year of the reviews scheduled within the next twelve months. When a review is scheduled, the administrator scheduling the review shall also notify the faculty members of the unit involved.
      2. Early reviews. The administrator to be reviewed, a member of the administration to whom the administrator reports, or one or more members of the faculty of the administrator's unit may request an early review when circumstances warrant it. Any circumstances that lead to a request for an early review are expected to be unusual and of a serious nature. The decision to proceed with an early review and the scheduling of either an early or regular review are the sole responsibility of the president, or the provost, or the dean of the regional college after consultation with the provost as appropriate. When a review is scheduled, the administrator scheduling the review shall notify the faculty of the unit involved.
   2. Documentary requirements. At the onset of the review, the committee shall be provided with the following documentary information:
      1. The administration's published job description for the position.
      2. A self-study by the administrator being reviewed, detailing accomplishments of management and leadership, problems encountered and solutions provided thereto, and other matters that the administrator perceives as important for the understanding of the administrator's function since the last review.
   3. Committee operations. 
      1. It shall be the responsibility of the review committee to ensure as wide as possible a base of input to the review. In particular, it shall provide ample opportunity for the faculty and staff of the unit to express their views. To this end, the review committee may: 
         1. Invite signed written statements from faculty, staff, students, and alumni concerning the performance of the administrator under review.
         2. Interview individuals and/or groups whose input appears specially relevant; e.g., staff members, alumni groups, advisory committees, curricular bodies, past members of such bodies, others with whom the administrator works on a peer level and administrators who report directly to the administrator being reviewed.
         3. Interview student committees that work with the administrator and students who may serve on faculty/student committees under his/her purview. 
      2. Nothing in the above language is meant to limit the range of input that the committee may seek nor shall it be used to limit input that members, be they faculty, staff, students, or alumni, wish to make to the review committee.
      3. It shall be the responsibility of the review committee to ensure that all communications to the committee are treated in a confidential manner. The committee shall further allow the administrator being reviewed the opportunity to discuss issues and concerns that are identified during the review process and to review and respond to all documentary evidence, including any formal minutes of interviews. This opportunity should come reasonably late in the process. The committee members shall take care not to reveal the names of the authors of statements or of individuals involved in particular interviews.
   4. Report. Following the completion of the committee's review, a written report shall be submitted to the administrator who scheduled the review. The report shall contain a description of the process, data collected, and specific recommendations. Following receipt of this report, the administrator who scheduled the review shall evaluate it and forward a copy of the report along with his/her own written comments to the reviewed officer. His/her comments shall also be made available to the members of the review committee. The transmission of the report to the administrator being reviewed should be accompanied by an in-depth oral explanation of the findings. The faculty in the unit of the administrator being reviewed shall receive a timely written report from the administrator who scheduled the review.
   5. Follow up. The administrator who has been reviewed will comment specifically on the progress being made toward fulfilling the plan of action in his or her subsequent annual reports, which will be made available to the faculty of the specific unit.
   6. Legal restrictions. All aspects of the review process must be consistent with the requirements of state and federal law and with university policy.
   7. Review of the procedures. Each review committee is charged with recommending any desirable change in the procedures to the committee on administrative officers.
5. Composition of review committees. 
   1. Provost.
      1. One member of the executive committee of the faculty senate.
      2. Four senior faculty members (including one regional campus faculty member) nominated by the committee on administrative officers.
      3. Two associate provosts or deans chosen from any of the colleges or independent schools.
      4. One department chair/school director.
   2. Dean of the regional college.
      1. One associate provost or dean, chosen from any of the colleges or independent schools.
      2. Three senior faculty members, each faculty member from a different campus under the auspices of the regional college. 
      3. One senior faculty member from the Kent campus.
      4. One regional campus dean.
   3. Deans of colleges, independent schools, and regional campuses.
      1. One dean for colleges and independent schools, representative must be a dean of a college or independent school: for regional campuses, representative must be a dean of a regional campus 
      2. Three senior faculty members: representatives must be from the unit; for regional campuses representatives, two are to be from the same campus as the dean and one from another regional campus.
      3. For colleges and independent schools in which there are a significant number of faculty members whose appointment is at the regional campus, as determined by the provost, one representative shall be from the regional campuses. 
      4. One senior faculty member: representative must be from outside the unit. In the case of regional campus deans, this representative must be from the Kent campus.
      5. One department chairperson or school director from the unit (if appropriate). 
   4. Dean of undergraduate studies.
      1. One associate provost or dean, chosen from any of the colleges and independent schools.
      2. Three senior faculty members, each faculty member from a different college or independent school.
      3. One department chair/school director.
      4. One undergraduate studies professional staff member.
   5. Dean of graduate studies.
      1. One associate provost or dean, chosen from any of the colleges and independent schools. 
      2. Three senior faculty members, nominated by the members of the research council, each faculty member from a different college or independent school. 
      3. One department chair/school director.
      4. One member of the staff of the office of research and graduate studies.
   6. Dean of the university libraries.
      1. One dean.
      2. Three senior faculty members: representatives must be from library administration.
      3. One senior faculty member: representative must be from outside the unit.
      4. One department chairperson or school director.
   7. Dean of the honors college.
      1. One dean.
      2. Three senior faculty members, who have taught at least two Honors courses during the term of the dean under review, nominated by the honors college policy council. 
      3. One senior faculty member: representative must be from outside the unit.
      4. One department chairperson or school director.
6. Selection process guidelines.
   1. The person to be reviewed shall not participate in the selection process. To the extent possible, members of the review committee should have been members of the university for the five years preceding the review of the person to be reviewed.
   2. Faculty from the unit include regional campus faculty so that regional campus faculty belong to two units, one academic and one geographic.
   3. Senior faculty are defined as those with associate or full professorial rank (this requirement may be waived by the provost for review of regional campus deans).
7. Selection process. Review committee members will be nominated by the following groups and the final selection of the committee will be made from the list of nominees by the administrator conducting the review except that additional members, possibly from outside the university, may be added if, in his/her opinion, they are needed. The number of these additional appointments shall be limited to a maximum of fifty percent of the committee membership. Should the administrator conducting the review find one or more of the lists of nominees to be unacceptable, that person may return the list(s) in question to the nominating group(s) together with a written explanation of this action and request that a new list(s) be established. The administrator conducting the review shall appoint the chairperson of the review committee.
   1. Faculty members from the unit.
      1. Deans of college, independent school, or library administration. College advisory committee nominates six.
      2. Deans of regional campuses. 
         1. Faculty council on the campus nominates four. 
         2. Regional campus faculty advisory council nominates two from other campuses. 
      3. Other administrative officers. The regional campus faculty advisory committee will nominate six for the dean of the regional college. In the case of all others, unless specified above, the faculty senate committee on administrative officers will nominate faculty who have involvement with the unit's programming.
   2. Faculty from outside the unit. In each case where the faculty outside the unit are designated, the committee on administrative officers will nominate three senior faculty from outside the unit. These faculty must come from at least two different units.
   3. Department chairpersons or school directors. The chairs and directors council will nominate three chairs and/or directors.
   4. Deans. The academic affairs administrative council will nominate two Kent campus deans or regional campuses, as appropriate.

This policy was previously numbered 3342-6-21.1.