Review Procedures for Chancellors and Provost
About This Policy
- Effective Date:
- Date of Last Review/Update:
- Responsible University Office:
- University Faculty Council
- Responsible University Administrator:
- University Faculty Council
The president is responsible for the evaluation of his/her direct reports and for the organization of the process conducted to that end. In addition to the president’s annual assessment of chancellors/provost, the president, in collaboration with the University Faculty Council, will conduct a fifth-year review of chancellors/provost using the following review procedures, which shall be referred to as the “Review.”
The president must have latitude in determining which issues to emphasize in reviewing the performance of a chancellor/provost, but the Board of Trustees encourages the president to consider, among other things, the following areas:
Execution of the policies and strategies of the board and the president
Administration of all academic, faculty, and student programs and issues
Financial performance of the campus
Academic progress of the campus
Relationship of the campus to the geographic region served
Staff and faculty development and all human resources issues
The intangibles of creativity, growth, spirit, and vision
Principles for Chancellor/Provost Reviews
Baseline Data. The evaluation should be conducted on the basis of a job description provided by the president and reports of previous reviews. The chancellor/provost under review shall provide the Review Committee with a written assessment of his or her specific campus and personal performance goals, and shall meet with the Review Committee to provide an overview of the chancellor’s/provost's role and activities, to discuss campus issues of particular importance, to indicate the range of constituencies bearing on the chancellor’s/provost's activities, and to make suggestions concerning groups or individuals whose comments should be sought by the Review Committee.
Review Coordination. The process should be coordinated by the president or the president’s designee.
Fifth-Year Review Components. The fifth-year evaluation should include information from the following:
The results of a faculty review process outlined in this document, and information gathered as the president deems appropriate;
Information provided by the chancellor/provost under review describing her/his accomplishments.
The evaluation process should include input from one or more peer reviewers familiar with the responsibilities and duties of individuals who serve in similar positions at comparable institutions.
All reports and pertinent data should be submitted to the president and be utilized in accordance with his/her direction and this policy.
The evaluation process must be conducted with dignity, confidentiality as permitted, and respect for all parties involved.
The president reserves the right to vary these procedures as s/he deems appropriate and will inform the UFC of his/her reasons for doing so.
Reason for Policy
The purpose of such reviews is to provide the president, the trustees, and the chancellor/provost with broadly gathered information concerning the quality of leadership provided by the chancellor/provost; to recognize and encourage success; to identify areas in need of improvement; and to provide appropriate constituencies with the opportunity to assess the chancellor’s/provost's leadership. Normally, the constituencies would include faculty, administration, staff, students, alumni and community leaders. Costs of the Review process shall be underwritten by the office of the president.
Chancellor/Provost Review Procedures
Frequency of Review. The Review shall be conducted early in the fifth year in office and in recurring intervals of five years thereafter.
Organization of Review. Early in the spring semester of the year preceding a chancellor’s/provost's review, the president of the university or his/her designee shall send notice to the faculty council on that campus, and other relevant constituencies, announcing the formation of a Review Committee. The Review Committee shall be selected according to the following provisions:
Because the responsibilities of the chancellor/provost bear directly on the teaching and research mission of the campus, approximately half of the members of the Review Committee shall be from the faculty of the campus. The president shall seek nominations for these appointments from the appropriate elected campus nomination committee. That committee will submit one hundred percent more names than the total to be selected by the president, but the president shall be responsible for the final selection of all faculty appointments, which may include faculty other than those provided. The appointees should be broadly representative of campus faculty and should be predominately tenured faculty. The president shall retain the authority to appoint a limited number of non-tenured faculty when appropriate.
The president shall also solicit nominations for non-faculty nominees from representative student and staff bodies, and from the chancellor/provost under review to ensure that there is appropriate representation of the campus and the community and other constituencies significantly involved with the chancellor/provost and campus.
The president shall review the lists of nominees with the chancellor/provost, who may object to the appointment of individuals for good cause.
The president shall appoint the Review Committee Chair, after consultation with the campus Faculty Council Agenda/Executive Committee.
Timing. The president shall convene the Review Committee before the close of the spring semester, or shortly before the beginning of the fall semester, in such a manner that at least one semester is available for completion of the Review process. The Review process is expected to be completed within one academic year. The faculty leader of the campus faculty council shall be present at the first meeting.
Peer Reviewers. One or more peer reviewers may be appointed by the president to assist the committee. The peer reviewer shall be an academic administrator knowledgeable about the role of the chancellor/provost at comparable institutions. The president, in consultation with both the chair of the Review Committee and the chancellor/provost, will select the peer reviewer. The peer reviewer shall compile a single report, to be submitted directly to the Review Committee chair and to the president. The chancellor/provost under review will have the opportunity to respond, in writing, to the peer review report at the time it is submitted. The Review Committee’s final report shall take note of the peer reviewer’s report.
Outside Advisor. An outside advisor(such as a higher education consultant) may be used to assist the Review Committee with its processes at the request of the president.
Basic Review Objectives. At a minimum, the review committee will address the following questions:
Has the chancellor/provost provided leadership to the campus in setting clear goals and objectives? Are these appropriate for the campus?
Has the chancellor/provost involved relevant constituencies in developing and adopting these goals?
To what extent does the chancellor/provost facilitate the achievement of these goals?
How effectively does the chancellor/provost represent the campus to persons outside the campus?
How successful has the chancellor/provost been in managing the campus in the face of pressures?
How is the campus perceived on a local, state, or national level?
How effectively has the chancellor/provost implemented the university’s policies, including the Affirmative Action Plan?
Data Collection, Confidentiality, and Impartiality. The Review Committee shall gather data for the review. The committee may use documentary reviews, constituent surveys, and letters. The committee may also use interviews with campus and university-level administrators, chancellors/provost of other IU campuses, and representatives from a variety of constituencies, including staff, students, community members, and faculty of the chancellor’s/provost's campus, including members of faculty governance. The committee also shall seek information from groups and individuals identified by the chancellor/provost. Open meetings to gather information pertinent to the Review are discouraged. The Review Committee shall devise its procedures to ensure and convey to participants the openness of the review to all information and views.
Individual comments must be submitted by identifiable individuals. Anonymous comments will not be included. While the Review Committee will attempt to keep comments and letters confidential, under Indiana State Law, the university cannot assure confidentiality.
Survey. The Review Committee may utilize a survey as part of the review.
The survey shall be developed and administered by a professional survey agency. Questions shall be formulated by the agency in consultation with the Review Committee and the president or his/her designee. The survey shall not contain written comments.
The survey will be administered to tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track faculty members. Data for different faculty appointment categories may be disaggregated in reporting. Summary survey results shall be reported confidentially to the president, the chancellor/provost under review, the Review Committee, and the agenda committee/executive committee of the campus faculty council. A summary of these survey results will be included in the final report of the Review Committee.
The use of surveys to gather information from other constituencies (e.g., community members, staff, alumni) may be considered by the Review Committee. Should a decision be made to conduct such surveys, they shall be developed and administered in the same manner as the faculty survey.
Reporting. Prior to submitting a final report to the president, the Review Committee shall meet separately with the chancellor/provost being reviewed and then with the president to discuss the findings of the report. The chancellor/provost shall be given an opportunity to provide the Review Committee with a written response to its findings. The Review Committee then shall provide a final written report to the president containing a summary of its findings and recommendations and the response of the chancellor/provost.
If there are serious disagreements within the Review Committee about the content of the report, a minority report may be submitted with the Review Committee report. The president will respond to the Review Committee, discussing actions to be taken as a result of the committee’s findings and recommendations.
The committee’s final report, any minority reports, and the president’s response shall be made available to the chancellor/provost under review, the UFC Agenda Committee and the executive committee of the campus faculty council.
After receiving the report, the UFC Agenda Committee and the executive committee of the campus faculty council will invite the Review Committee chair to present an oral summary report in executive session to their respective councils, following Academic Handbook procedures.
The president shall consult with the leader of the campus faculty council and the chair of the Review Committee, and then the president and the chair shall determine what elements of the final report, minority reports, and the president’s response should be included in a public summary document; however, the summary document must include an accurate characterization of the results of any surveys conducted by the Review Committee. The Review Committee report, the minority report, and the public summary may not quote directly from documents.