S.99-69
• ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Associate Vice-President, Academic
?
Memorandum
To: ?
Senate
?
From:
Judith Osborne
Associate Vice-Preident, Academic
Subject: ?
Procedure for Mid-Tenn ?
Date:
October 19, 1999
Review of Senior Academic
Administrators
Attached is the final draft of a set of procedures for the mid-term review of
academic administrators. SFUFA has been extensive consulted during the
drafting process.
I would ask that these procedures be reviewed by SCAR.
.
.Note to Senate
Following review by SCAR at its meeting of October
19
9
1999, this policy is now forwarded to Senate for
discussion
.
Procedures for the Mid-Term Review of
Senior Academic Administrators
Purpose: ?
To provide a mechanism for facilitating constructive
feedback to senior academic administrators regarding the
performance of their administrative duties; to provide a channel of
accountability to the Board of Governors and to improve the
University community's knowledge and understanding of and
confidence in administrative actions.
1.
These procedures apply to senior academic administrators from
the level of Deans up who also hold faculty appointments or their
equivalent.
2.
Normally, the mid-term review will take place at the beginning
of the third year of a five year administrative term.
3
?
The administrator being reviewed shall prepare a statement
for the review that will summarize his/her activities and
accomplishments during the first part of his/her appointment and
goals and objectives for the remainder of the appointment in relation
to his/her job/duties. This document will form part of the review
materials and will be made available to those consulted as part of the
review.
4.
The review will be co-ordinated by a member of the university
community designated by the person to whom the administrator
reports, i.e. the Board Chair, President, or Vice President, Academic.
The person to whom the administrator reports shall submit to the co-
ordinator a list of people who should have input into the process.
5.
The administrator being reviewed will be entitled to comment
on the list of people the co-ordinator intends to consult and to
suggest additional names.
6.
The review shall consist of two parts:
Part A:
The following individuals or groups of individuals must be consulted:
(i)
the person to whom the administrator reports;
(ii)
peers (if any);
?
I*
1.
(iii)
those who report to the administrator;
(iv) the office staff of the administrator and
(v)
a random selection of at least 20 individuals who have direct
knowledge of the administrator's work through the structures of
university governance.
Part B:
A random sample of an appropriate field of faculty will be asked to
complete a brief questionnaire. For senior academic administrators
who serve the university as a whole, this sample will comprise at
least
25%
of faculty. For a faculty dean, it will comprise at least 50
faculty members or, all faculty members in his/her faculty where
that number is less than 50. The reliability of the responses will
depend on the response rate. The questionnaire will be in the form of
Appendix A, as modified by the person to whom the administrator
reports to reflect the responsibilities of the administrator being
reviewed.
7.
The co-ordinator shall collect and collate the responses to both
. ?
parts of the review and submit the results in an anonymous format
to the administrator for comment before forwarding the complete
package to the person to whom the administrator reports. The
President of the Faculty Association will have an opportunity to
review the entire package on a confidential basis. The person to
whom the administrator reports will then review and discuss the
feedback with the administrator.
8.
The administrator will prepare a revised written statement of
goals and objectives which responds to the major findings of the
review and which will be made public along with the summary of
activities and accomplishments produced in step 3.
9.
The person to whom the administrator reports shall provide a
confidential written assessment of the mid-term review, which may
include a written response from the administrator, to the President,
in the case of deans and to the Board of Governors through the
President, in the case of vice presidents.
10.
If the administrator is subsequently considered for re-
appointment or for a different senior academic administrative
appointment, the extent to which s/he responded effectively to the
h'.
review will be taken into account in determining their suitability for
the position. ?
9
APPENDIX
Participants in the review process will be asked to assess the
administrator's performance relative to the stated expectations of the
position and the stated goals and objectives of the administrator.
In Part A of the review the participants will be asked the
following open-ended questions:
(a)
what are the strengths and weaknesses thus far of X in his/her
role as President/Vice President/Dean and
(b)
what advice would you give him/her regarding the balance of the
term of office?
In addition, they will be asked if they have any other comments on
the administrator's performance.
In Part B of the review, the participants will be asked these
same open-ended questions, plus a number of Likert-scale questions1
which will cover the following criteria:2
(i)
Fostering teaching and research and other aspects of the
academic mission of the university;
(ii)
Providing leadership;
(iii)
Representing their constituency inside and outside the
University;
(iv)
The efficiency and effectiveness of this person's office;
(v)
Openness and consultation;
(vi)
Responsiveness to faculty concerns;
(vii)
Fostering academic freedom;
(viii)
Commitment to equity and diversity;
(ix)
Interpersonal skills, including conflict resolution;
(x)
Administration of University policies;
(xi)
Ability to make and communicate decisions in a fair and
consistent manner.
1 One of the response options will be "No Comment".
2
The questions may also include examples relevant to the position being reviewed.
