Guidelines for Review of Certain Administrative Officers
June 29, 2001
TO: Administrative Review File
FROM: James Moeser, Chancellor
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Review of Certain Administrative Officers at UNC-CH
I have adopted the procedure described below as a guide in the evaluation of Vice Chancellors and Deans of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This procedure is consistent with the provisions of the governing Code of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and with the supplemental document, “Policies Concerning Senior Administrative Officers of The University of North Carolina,” approved by the Board of Governors.
While this procedure is required to be followed in the performance review of officers whose evaluation is the direct responsibility of the Chancellor, officers conducting reviews at other levels may well wish to apply the same or a similar procedure.
- Not later than the fourth year following the initial appointment, and not less frequently than every five years thereafter, a review will be conducted to evaluate Vice Chancellors and Deans. For the reviews of Vice Chancellors (with the exception of the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost) and the Deans, the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost, hereafter referred to as the “appointing officer,” shall be responsible for initiating the review and for developing recommendations to the Chancellor. The appointment of an evaluation committee for the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost will be initiated by the Chancellor, who shall be considered the appointing officer for this position.
- Each review committee shall consist of at least seven members, of whom at least three are members of faculty of the unit under review, or, in the case of Vice Chancellors, members of the units under their purview. The majority of the committee shall be composed of individuals outside the unit of the officer under review. The appointing officer shall appoint to chair the review committee an individual who is employed outside the unit of the individual being reviewed. The appointing officer shall also appoint at least one faculty member from a list of at least six prepared by the Chair of the Faculty, who will consult with the faculty and/or staff members of the unit under review. The appointing officer shall invite the person being reviewed to nominate individuals to serve on the review committee. The appointing officer may select the remaining review committee members at large and may include EHRA Non-Faculty and SHRA staff members. Where appropriate and possible, one or two additional faculty or administrators from similar universities may be invited by the appointing officer to serve on the review committee.
- The review committee will meet with the appointing officer to be informed of his or her expectations for the administrator under review and the relevant unit. The appointing officer will provide guidance on the types of information that might be most helpful for the committee to collect and summarize. The review committee will also meet with the administrator being reviewed to discuss his or her goals and to obtain relevant information, such as the unit’s annual reports and planning document, if one is available.
- The primary responsibility of the review committee is to serve as a conduit and organizing mechanism for feedback concerning the performance of the administrator being reviewed (See Appendix A). In the case of the review of a Dean, this feedback should be solicited from faculty, staff, and students, as well as from others inside and outside of the University, as appropriate. The review committee shall provide faculty and staff in the unit of the administrator under review with an opportunity to provide written feedback. The review committee’s consultation with faculty, staff, and students does not relieve the appointing officer of the duty, or the faculty of the right, of direct consultation with each other. It is expected that this will occur, and that the appointing officer will inform individuals in the relevant administrative unit of the opportunities to provide evaluative feedback. The appointing officer also may ask the review committee to contact individuals or organizations outside of the administrative unit, either on or off campus, if such participation will assist in the review process.
- A final written report of the review committee shall be submitted to the appointing officer, who may then meet with the committee to discuss any issues that require elaboration or clarification. The appointing officer will share the report and discuss its content with the administrator being reviewed and invite a response. In the review of a Dean or Vice Chancellor other than the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost, the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost will submit the review committee report, the administrator’s response, if one is generated, and his or her recommendation to the Chancellor for review and action. All documents generated by the review committee shall become a confidential part of the administrator’s personnel file.
- The work of the review committee typically should be completed in a six week period.