Title: #IV-14A.
Evaluation of Administrators at WVU at
Date: February 28, 2008 (replaces
version dated May 23, 2006)
Objectives
for the Five-Year Appraisal Process
·
Affirm current performance as perceived by various internal
and external “customers”
·
Identify areas of opportunity in a constructive manner for
improved performance related to role/responsibility
·
Enhance understanding of the role/responsibility of the
position
·
Conduct process in a positive environment that fosters
“shared understanding” of performance
·
Provide professional growth and development for the
individual
It is important to the institution that key
administrators receive objective feedback on his/her performance periodically,
in addition to the annual review process.
Given that such administrators have different roles and constituencies,
the procedures used to evaluate them should be tailored to their role.
The review of these key administrators
focuses on the review of the administrator and not on the programs for which
the administrator is responsible. The
Campus President reviews the performance of each administrator reporting
directly to the Campus President annually.
In the fifth year of an administrator’s term, a major review of his/her
performance is conducted with subsequent major reviews on a five-year
cycle. When appropriate, the major
review may be rescheduled to avoid conflict with other major activities
underway in the unit, or in the college.
Annual
Evaluation
The Campus President annually evaluates the
performance of each administrator reporting directly to the Campus
President. To facilitate such an
evaluation, each administrator prepares a written summary of from three to five
pages based on goals and objectives describing the administrator’s major
accomplishments during the year including accomplishments that are directly
linked to the Institution’s Compact. The
summary includes a description of the administrator’s significant planned
activities for the next year and how these activities will be measured. The summary will be the basis for discussion
with the Campus President of the administrator’s past performance and future
activities. A written summary of that
discussion and any written responses by the administrator to it will be made a
part of the administrator’s personnel file.
It is expected that each administrator conduct similar reviews of those
persons reporting to the administrator.
Five-Year
Review
The major review completed in an
administrator’s fifth year of service will be conducted with the assistance of
a review committee, which will develop a report of its findings for the Campus
President. The report of the committee
charged with review of the administrator’s performance will be submitted to the
Campus President for confidential discussion with the administrator. The Campus President will meet with the
administrator to provide feedback from the review and to make specific
recommendations to the administrator. The administrator and the Campus President
will agree on a set of mutual goals and objectives resulting from the
review. As appropriate, the Campus
President may distribute information summarizing the results of the review and
the goals and objectives identified to those most directly affected.
The Campus President in consultation with the
administrator who is to be reviewed and the chair of the review committee shall
establish a schedule for the performance evaluation activities. It is expected that the evaluation review
will normally be completed within a four-month period.
The Campus President, the chair of the
committee evaluating the administrator, and the administrator will meet prior
to the start of the evaluation to review the areas that will be evaluated. Areas of responsibility will be identified by
the description for the position occupied by the administrator, and/or the
Position Information Questionnaire (PIQ).
The areas of responsibility identified on the description/PIQ will be
modified, as appropriate, to reflect altered responsibilities associated with
the position.
General areas of administrative leadership
may also be reviewed, including such items as leadership and planning; human
resource management; program management; budget management; enhancement of
quality; governance-internal relations; external relations; and social
justice. It is recognized that not all
of these areas are applicable to every administrator and that some areas may
receive greater emphasis than others.
Following the identification of the areas to
be evaluated, the administrator under review shall prepare and forward to the
review committee chair an assessment statement consisting of the
administrator’s assessment of his/her performance in relation to each of the
areas to be reviewed. The assessment
statement shall be no longer than ten pages.
Appendices providing additional information may be provided. This statement is to be submitted at least
three weeks prior to the initiation of the collection of information about the
administrator’s performance and is submitted as soon as possible after the
areas to be evaluated have been identified.
The review will be conducted by a committee
of three to five persons, one of whom shall be designated as chair. Committee members are being selected to
reflect the various constituencies with whom the administrator works. Recommendations of possible committee members
should be solicited from those constituencies and considered when appointing
the committee.
To obtain an accurate and objective
perception of the performance of the administrator, the review committee will
provide an opportunity for the views of persons working with the administrator
to be solicited. Those persons may
include other administrators, faculty members, classified and unclassified
staff members, students, external constituents, and individuals from the main
campus. Evaluative information obtained
from these persons must be attributable. Information will be summarized and made a
part of the report to the Campus President.
This requirement does not preclude the use of survey procedures for
constituent input if such information is attributable.
The review committee will be responsible for
developing and forwarding to the Campus President a report of its
findings. Information received during
the review shall also be made available to the Campus President but will not be
shared directly with the administrator being evaluated.
Administrators
to be Evaluated Year
of Appointment
Executive Dean of Academic Affairs 2007
Dean of Corporate and Community Education 2008
Dean of Students 2008
Chief Financial Officer 2007
Director, Facilities and Grounds 2005
Executive Director, Institutional Advancement
1986
Executive Director, Foundation 2006
Director, Human Resources 2006
1. Committee Composition
A designated appointee of the Campus
President will chair the committee.
Additional members may
include a minimum of two of the following persons:
a.
A
college administrator who reports to the Campus President
b.
A
college faculty member who is neither a division chair nor a coordinator
c.
A
department director, division chair, or coordinator
d.
A
member of the staff from within, or closely affiliated with, the administrator’s
area
e.
A
representative from the
The Campus President may appoint additional
committee members after consultation with the committee.
The Campus President will discuss a list of
nominees with the administrator and, subsequent to that, will make appointments
to the committee.
2. Areas of Evaluation
The quality of the administrator’s success in
the areas listed below will be evaluated as appropriate.
The review should reflect the evaluation of
the administrator’s performance by the various constituencies with which the
administrator interacts. These
constituencies may include: faculty
members; staff members; students; administrators within the college; administrators
in other units of the University; alumni; members and leaders of relevant
professional organizations; etc. The
constituencies should be identified at the start of the evaluation process and
methods of soliciting their evaluative comments identified. It may not be appropriate to ask all
constituencies for evaluative comments on all of the areas identified below.
The review is expected to reflect the
expectations of a particular position and thus the relative importance of each
of the areas identified below. Some
administrators may have significant relationships with constituencies external
to the college; others may have more limited relationships. The expectations are identified and reviewed
in consultation with the Campus President at the outset of the review process
and emphasis attached to the areas of expectation.
A memo summarizing the areas to be evaluated
and the manner in which information will be collected about those areas will be
distributed to the Campus President, administrators, and faculty members and
staff before the review is initiated.
a. Leadership and Planning
·
Establishment
and effective communication of goals and objectives;
·
Anticipation
of future developments;
·
Formulation
of effective plans to achieve desired results;
·
Ability
to present ideas in a clear and consistent fashion;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
b. Human Resource Management
·
Assistance
in the recruitment of faculty, administrators, and staff;
·
Encouragement
of faculty and staff development;
·
Development
of effective subordinates;
·
Development
and motivation of faculty and staff;
·
Ability
to work with faculty and staff in an open and honest manner;
·
Support
of and commitment to affirmative action;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
c. Program Management
·
Leadership
and management in program change, when needed;
·
Enrollment
management;
·
Efficient
and effective execution of operating and strategic plans with regard to
programs;
·
Overall
leadership for the programs of the college;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
d. Budget Management
·
Effective
management of the resource base of the college through strategic and base
budget planning;
·
Tying
of budget decisions to the operating and strategic plans;
·
Timely
decision making on budget matters;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
e. Enhancement of Quality
·
Maintenance
of appropriate academic standards for admission and retention;
·
Use
of decision-making processes that promote quality;
·
Encouragement
of quality in all academic and non-academic programs in the college;
·
Encouragement
and support of high-quality teaching, research, and public service;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
f. Governance-Internal Relations
·
Establishment
or encouragement of mechanisms for appropriate faculty governance in a
collegial setting;
·
Handling
of problems and plans efficiently and in a timely fashion;
·
Effectiveness
in making individuals fully aware of their responsibilities and providing
guidance with respect to the accomplishment of the specific goals and
objectives related to these responsibilities;
·
Establishment
or maintenance of effective channels of communication within the college,
including communication on policies and procedures;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
g. External Relations
·
Involvement
in activities that show concern for the welfare of the total college as well as
specific individual responsibilities;
·
Involvement
in developmental activities, including fund raising;
·
Cooperation
with other academic and non-academic units;
·
Development
of effective relationships with alumni, Board of Advisors, and advisory groups;
·
Involvement
in state, regional, or national professional organizations, as appropriate;
·
Other
indicators identified as appropriate by the committee.
h. Overall assessment of the administrator’s performance
3. Procedures for the Review
The following describe the procedures
generally to be followed when an administrator is reviewed. The Campus President may modify these
procedures.
a.
The
review committee is formed. (Minimum of three)
- The
committee chair is selected by the Campus President.
·
The
Campus President selects an administrator to serve on the committee.
·
Two
staff representatives within the administrator’s area, or closely affiliated
with the administrator’s area of responsibility, are nominated by the WVUP
Staff Council for the Campus President’s consideration when forming the
committee membership.
·
The
WVUP Faculty Senate nominates two faculty members for the Campus President’s
consideration when forming the committee membership.
·
Nominations
for a department director or division chair may be sought by the Campus
President from the appropriate area.
·
The
Campus President may select/invite a representative from the
·
The
Campus President will discuss the list of nominees with the administrator, then
appoint review committee members.
·
The
administrator being reviewed may suggest other individuals or groups to be
consulted in the review process (e.g. advisory committee, officers of
professional organizations, etc.).
b.
A
staff support person is identified by the Campus President to maintain records
and confidentiality of responses.
c.
The
Committee establishes a schedule, policies on confidentiality, etc. for the
review process.
d.
A
memo describing the membership of the review committee, the areas that will be
reviewed, the manner in which data will be collected, and the schedule for the
review is distributed by the review committee to the Campus President,
administrator, faculty, and staff.
e.
The
administrator submits a self-evaluation and meets with the committee to discuss
the self-evaluation. Previous goals and
objectives and yearly evaluations are submitted.
f.
A
standardized questionnaire to solicit the views of faculty, staff, and others
as appropriate has been developed for use in all reviews and will be provided
by the Campus President, along with standardized form letters, to the committee
chair. If appropriate, limited
modifications may be made to that questionnaire with approval by the Campus
President. The committee will provide
the administrator with a copy of the questionnaire to be used in the review
process.
The committee reviews
the standardized letters and memos used to solicit views and modifies them, as
appropriate.
g.
Questionnaires
are distributed, returned to the chair of the committee and analyzed, and the
data forwarded to the committee.
h.
The
committee may meet or otherwise consult with the administrator to clarify any
issues or questions that have arisen.
i.
The
committee develops a draft of the report and, after review of that draft by the
full committee, a final report is prepared.
k.
The final report is submitted to the Campus President in a meeting with
him/her
where the report is discussed.
The report includes
an analysis of questionnaire results, an analysis of other responses and data
received, and the committee’s recommendations with regard to strengths and
areas in which improvement is needed.
l.
The
Campus President discusses the report with the administrator and provides
him/her with a copy of it, or a summary.
Review
Schedule Based on Current Staff
2009-2010 Director, Facilities
and Grounds
2010-2011 Executive Director,
Institutional Advancement
Executive
Director, WVU at Parkersburg Foundation
Director,
Human Resources
2011-2012 Executive Dean of
Academic Affairs
Chief
Financial Officer
2012-2013 Dean of Corporate and
Community Education
Dean
of Students
Approved
by WVU Office of the Provost June 30, 2003.