2007 Reaffirmation Teams :: 3.2.10 - 2007 Reaffirmation Teams

2007 Reaffirmation Teams

3.2.10 - 2007 Reaffirmation Teams

The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its administrators, including the chief executive officer, on a periodic basis.

Compliance Judgment

Compliance

Narrative

The administrators at The University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas), including the president, are evaluated on a periodic basis.

Annual Reviews

Section 1 of Series 30501 of The University of Texas System (UT System) Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations requires annual evaluations of all UT System employees for three purposes: improvement of performance, consideration for promotion, and merit salary review [1]. The president annually reviews all vice presidents each spring [2], and all vice presidents are required to review their direct reports annually. The executive vice president and provost reviews the performance of the deans each spring. Both the reviews of the vice presidents and deans are done in writing and involve face to face meetings and frank discussions. Results of the evaluations of vice presidents are kept in the Office of the President. The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost houses the results of the evaluations of the deans. The deans review their school’s faculty; during the review, faculty with administrative responsibilities (e.g., program heads, department heads, and associate deans) discuss with the dean their performance. These evaluations are submitted to the executive vice president and provost for his review and are housed in the Faculty Records Office.

Section 51.352 of the Texas Education Code (TEC) requires an annual evaluation of the president, and Series 31101 of Regents’ Rules state that the “[e]valuation of the president of each institution is primarily the responsibility of the appropriate executive vice chancellor [3].” Each fall, the president submits to the chancellor and the executive vice chancellor for academic affairs an annual work plan that outlines the president’s goals for the coming year. The work plan serves as the basis for the evaluation of the president’s performance. As part of the evaluation process, the president also annually provides the chancellor and the executive vice chancellor with an accomplishment report that summarizes the achievements made with regards to the work plan. The chancellor and the executive vice chancellor write a one-page response to these documents for the Board of Regents and then meet with the president to discuss their response. President Daniel has had two review meetings with the chancellor and executive vice chancellor-April 18, 2006 [4] and June 7, 2007 [5]. Each year, at the August meeting of the Board of Regents, the chancellor and executive vice chancellor present their responses to the board in executive session. The Board of Regents first evaluated President Daniel on August 9, 2006 [6]; his second performance evaluation takes place on August 22, 2007.

Periodic Reviews

Section 3 of Series 31101 establishes the requirement that all academic administrators below the level of president undergo periodic evaluations that include input from faculty, staff, students, and (where appropriate) external constituents [3]. UT Dallas Policy Memorandum 96-III.30-68, Evaluation of Academic Administrators, provides a detailed description of the university policy regarding the periodic evaluation of academic administrators [7]. This document includes detailed information regarding the review procedures as well as questionnaires (i.e., survey forms A [8], B [9], and C [10]) that are distributed during the review process. The questionnaires have been customized depending upon what duties the academic administrator may have (e.g., the dean of libraries vs. the dean of the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Beginning in fall 2006, rather than e-mailing the questionnaires regarding the deans, the questionnaires were placed on a secure server, and this portion of the review process became web-based. Two different sets of tokens (i.e., randomly-generated numbers and letters) were developed and mailed to the full-time faculty-one set for people who report directly to the person under review, and the other set for the other constituents within the university [11]. These tokens guarantee anonymity for all participants. In spring 2007, the web-based system was extended to departments and programs, and the Mathematical Sciences Department Head was reviewed using these newly developed processes [12]. In addition to gathering this web-based information, the person conducting the review meets face to face with the administrative staff that report to the person under review and with concerned students to maximize input.

The president has the responsibility, directly or through designated individuals, for the appointment, evaluation, and dismissal of all academic administrators [7]. In general, the president delegates these reviews to the administrator’s immediate supervisor. The provost, for example, conducts the reviews of deans, and deans conduct reviews of those whom they supervise.

The normal cycle for the reviews is every six years; however, newly appointed academic administrators are reviewed after the completion of three years. The Dean of the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering was reviewed in fall 2006 [13]. During the same period, the president conducted a periodic review of the executive vice president and provost [14], and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost conducted reviews of the dean of libraries [15] and the dean of behavioral and brain sciences [16] [17].

The review process for the provost and academic deans focuses on such relevant areas as leadership, support for curricular objectives that promote student learning outcomes, support for research and/or creative endeavors, distribution of resources, and advocacy. The schedule of reviews of the academic deans is included in the supporting documents [18]. To ensure continual improvement, all reviews contain a feedback mechanism, both to the person under review and to those persons who are supervised by the academic administrator who has been reviewed. Hence, the person responsible for conducting the review meets with both parties to discuss the review. Additionally, the executive vice president and provost meets with the Academic Senate at the beginning of the fall semester to report on the reviews that were conducted in the preceding year; in the case of the review of the provost, the president reports to the senate regarding the review [17] [19].

Supporting Documents

Footnote Document
[1]Board of Regents Rule 30501-Employee Evaluations
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 17.97 KB (rule1013)
[2]Performance Appraisal of Administrative and Professional Personnel
PDF Document, 4 Pages, 31.42 KB (form1028)
[3]Series 31101, Board of Regents: Evaluation of Administrators
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 22.45 KB (bylaw1039)
[4]Agenda, Board of Regents Meeting regarding Review of President Daniel - 10 May 2006
PDF Document, 4 Pages, 55.47 KB (agenda1028)
[5]Agenda (Revised), UT System Board of Regents - 11 July 2007
PDF Document, 29 Pages, 1.56 MB (agenda1031)
[6]Board of Regents Meeting Minutes 20060809
PDF Document, 293 Pages, 4.01 MB (minutes1030)
[7]POLICY MEMORANDUM 96-III.30-68 - Evaluation of Academic Administrators
PDF Document, 13 Pages, 42.14 KB (policy1168)
[8]Survey Form A Policy Memorandum 96-III.30-68 Evaluation of Academic Administrators
PDF Document, 1 Page, 9.94 KB (survey1015)
[9]Survey Form B Policy Memorandum 96-III.30-68 Evaluation of Academic Administrators
PDF Document, 3 Pages, 12.61 KB (survey1016)
[10]Survey Form C Policy Memorandum 96-III.30-68 Evaluation of Academic Administrators
PDF Document, 3 Pages, 12.62 KB (survey1017)
[11]Invitation to comment re: Faculty evaluation of Dean George Fair, School of General Studies - 2007
PDF Document, 1 Page, 11.82 KB (evaluation1003)
[12]Invitation to comment re: Faculty evaluation of Dean Ali Hooshyar, School of Mathematical Sciences - 2007
PDF Document, 1 Page, 11.72 KB (evaluation1005)
[13]Invitation to comment re: Faculty Evaluation of Dean C. Robert Helms, School of Engineering and Computer Sciences - 2006
PDF Document, 1 Page, 369.91 KB (evaluation1007)
[14]Invitation to comment re: Faculty evaluation of Dr. Hobson Wildenthal, Executive Vice President & Provost - 2006
PDF Document, 1 Page, 9.06 KB (evaluation1006)
[15]Invitation to comment re: Faculty Evaluation of Dean Larry Sall, McDermott Libraries - 2006
PDF Document, 1 Page, 357.11 KB (evaluation1008)
[16]Invitation to comment re: Faculty Evaluation of Dean Bert Moore, School of Brain and Behavioral Sciences - 2006
PDF Document, 1 Page, 377.26 KB (evaluation1009)
[17]From David Daniel to faculty re: Reviews of Academic Administrators - dated 20060926
PDF Document, 1 Page, 248.57 KB (email1041)
[18]Schedule of dates for completed Dean reviews and dates for next review - y9999
PDF Document, 1 Page, 19.21 KB (review1001)
[19]Academic Senate Meeting Minutes re: Review of the Provost
PDF Document, 13 Pages, 46.27 KB (minutes1048)