US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 08/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Notice Given

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the “Interim Policy” — Review of Academic Administrators — as presented (see Related Documents) and its redlined version (see Related Documents), which will now be converted from temporary to permanent status.

Related Documents

Review of Academic Executive Administrators — Interim Policy

Review of Academic Executive Administrators (REDLINE)

Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

Date of Effectiveness: Upon Approval

One thought on “US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators”

  1. The UC-Boulder faculty evaluate their administrators with an “Administrator Appraisal Committee”:

    They post the reviews of the administrators here:

    Here’s an example:

    Report of the Boulder Faculty Assembly
    Administrator Appraisal CommitteeConcerning
    David Ikenberry, Dean of the Leeds School of Business
    Spring, 2016
    Administrator Appraisal Program

    The Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) of the Boulder Faculty Assembly
    (BFA) seeks to provide substantive feedback about administrators based on a high
    rate of response reflecting a representative survey of the faculty. Faculty members
    have the opportunity to provide AAP feedback to the review/reappointment
    process when the president, chancellor, provost, or the dean of their school or
    college is undergoing the third‐ or fifth‐year review. …

    Probably, the best description of the faculty’s impression of Dean Ikenberry is
    “mixed.” The items, while generally positive in their means, have an unusually high
    number of bimodal ratings. This indicates important disagreement among
    respondents over whether the item represents a strength or a weakness. Similarly,
    comments were split equally between positive (13) and negative (14).
    Dean Ikenberry received very high marks for moving the Business School
    forward and for curricular innovations at both the graduate and undergraduate
    levels. On the other hand, a significant number of items, especially for the General
    Population respondents, fell into the “issues to be mindful of” category. Here,
    comments suggest that micro‐management was a concern. The lowest scoring items
    indicate that the Dean has not been sensitive enough to faculty concerns,
    particularly with the merit‐based salary system.

    Of concern is his treatment of women faculty. In his three year AAP review, the
    committee suggested that “the Dean must seriously reflect on his behavior [toward
    women] and improve his efforts in this direction.” There were no items specifically
    addressing women faculty in the current survey, but there were five comments, four
    of which were not forwarded to the Dean, that contained the word “women.” All of
    them were negative. The Dean’s relationship with women faculty and staff is a
    major concern of the AAP committee.

    The vote on the committee was also mixed. Three voted for meeting
    expectations while five voted for not meeting expectations. The committee, however,
    has strong agreement that Dean Ikenberry has areas of excellence as well as areas of
    weakness, so that neither type of vote was indicative of all of the Dean’s
    performance. A professional plan might be considered in the major areas of

    Committee webpage:

    “The Administrator Appraisal Committee shall consist of ten members. Six members shall be elected from the Faculty Senate for staggered, three-year terms, and shall include of three members elected from Arts and Sciences representatives and three members elected from non-Arts and Sciences representatives. Two members shall be elected from the Assembly for staggered two-year terms, not to exceed their tenure in the Assembly. Two members shall be elected by the Assembly from candidates nominated by the administration for staggered, two-year terms. There shall be an ex officio member from the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis, selected with the concurrence of the Executive Committee.

    The Committee shall oversee the BFA evaluation of administrators during each spring semester, update or modify the evaluation questions and procedures in accordance with the faculty and evaluees’ feedback, and keep current the list of administrators to be appraised.” BFA Standing Rules, Article V, Section 1(c).

Leave a Reply