The purpose of these reviews is to assist the Chancellor and other senior administrative officers in meeting the responsibilities of their respective offices and in advancing the mission of the campus (or campuses) by identifying opportunities for greater effectiveness in a collegial fashion. The processes of the academic community must be characterized by reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect, and openness to constructive change. An important aspect of administrative leadership is the candid exchange of views between administrators and their constituents. Although such discussion should occur continuously, periodic reviews offer a special opportunity to evaluate accomplishments and to renew commitments. The review process has thus been established to promote the greater effectiveness of administrative officers by ensuring that they understand and reflect the highest goals and aspirations of the academic community. Reviews are conducted in the expectation that incumbents will become more effective in their roles as a result of constructive evaluation.

The review will be conducted at an initial time to be selected by the Chancellor but not later than early in the fifth year in office and in recurring intervals of at least every five years thereafter. Every possible effort should be made to synchronize administrative reviews with program reviews and periodic reviews by accrediting agencies. School deans and most senior campus administrators serve without fixed terms at the discretion of the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the Chancellor and President. Periodic reviews afford the Chancellor an opportunity to ensure that these administrators remain effective. The review of administrators within Schools (e.g., assistant and associate deans, directors, or department chairs) should be determined by each School in accord with its own procedures.

II. Committee Selection
Review committees will be appointed, according to the following provisions, by the Chancellor.

A. A majority of the members of the review committee will consist of tenure-track and, where appropriate, clinical faculty. The committee will normally consist of no less than five nor more than eleven members. Review committee size should be kept to a minimum consistent with representing all necessary constituencies. Ordinarily, a dean of comparable rank will be appointed to committees reviewing School deans.

B. In reviews of academic administrative officers of a particular school, a majority of members of the review committee will be chosen from a list of faculty from that school recommended by an appropriate elected faculty body of the school; the list should contain roughly one-third more names than requested by the Chancellor. In reviewing administrative officers other than school deans, the faculty members will be identified by the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee as noted below. The deans of schools with programs offered on other campuses in addition to IUPUI will be reviewed in accord with the procedures outlined below, except that faculty from other campuses will be included on the review committee in approximate proportion to the degree they comprise the faculty of the school. The elected school body should make its recommendations in accord with this principle.

C. The IUPUI Faculty Council's Executive Committee will submit a list of prospective review committee members for the balance of the faculty committee membership in the case of school deans and for the full faculty committee membership in the case of campus administrative officers; other members may be appointed as noted below. The list should contain roughly one-third more names than requested by the Chancellor.

D. In addition to receiving nominations for the review committee from the IUPUI Faculty Council, the Chancellor may solicit nominations from representative student and staff bodies as well as other constituencies, as appropriate, including representatives from other campuses when the deans of schools with multicampus programs are being reviewed.

E. The Chancellor will appoint the review committee chair, ordinarily from among the faculty. With rare exceptions, the chair of the review committee should be a senior, tenured faculty member.

F. The Chancellor may appoint external consultants with the advice of the review committee to prepare reports which would assist members in their work and provide a national perspective on the unit under review.

G. Review committees will normally be established early in the fall semester and each review process will normally be completed early in the succeeding spring semester, or before. Most reviews should take only a matter of weeks or a few months to complete, but each review committee will be assured of enough time to complete its work in a manner consistent with its charge.

H. Each spring the Chancellor will confer with the Faculty Council Executive Committee about the administrators to be reviewed during the next academic year; a tentative list of officers to be reviewed will be announced by the Chancellor at the last meeting of the IUPUI Faculty Council in the spring.

I. The Chancellor and President of the Faculty Council will confer with their counterparts on the Bloomington or other campuses as necessary to ensure that review committees of school deans with multicampus responsibilities are constituted and charged in a manner consistent with the respective deans' responsibilities.

III.Committee Charge
Although reviews are conducted to assist the Chancellor in evaluating the effectiveness of senior administrators, faculty (pursuant to the IUPUI Faculty Constitution, Article II.A.) and other constituents have an interest in both the review process and the results. To ensure that the broad interests of the faculty are adequately and routinely addressed, the Chancellor will confer with the Secretary of the IUPUI Faculty Council about reviews. Specifically, the Chancellor and the Secretary of the IUPUI Faculty Council will convene the committees for reviews; in the case of deans with multicampus responsibilities, the Secretary of the IUB Faculty Council (or other campus council when appropriate) may be asked to participate if the Chancellor deems that circumstances warrant.

The Chancellor will provide the review committee with a description of the duties and responsibilities of the administrator under review and reports of previous reviews. Individuals to be reviewed will provide a statement of their own goals and objectives. The Chancellor will assure that the administrator under review meets reasonable requests by the review committee for information as well as arrange for reasonable and adequate staff and financial support for the activities of the review committee. The review committee will establish its own procedures, provided that it responds with data to the following questions as a minimum: A. Has the administrator exercised appropriate leadership of the unit in establishing, maintaining, and facilitating clear goals and objectives?

B. How effectively does the administrator represent the unit to persons outside the unit, including peers nationally?

C. How successful has the administrator been in managing the human and financial resources of the unit in the face of competing pressures or uncertainty?

D. How is the unit perceived by its faculty and staff? How is the unit perceived on campus, system, state, and national levels?

E. How effectively has the administrator led the unit in carrying out unit and campus policies, including affirmative action plans and the unit's five-year plan?

F. What are the administrator's strengths and weaknesses and their impact upon effectiveness?

All faculty (or employees of a service unit) should be given an opportunity to comment on the administrator's effectiveness by responding to a survey that includes the above questions (among others developed by the committee) and by providing additional narrative comments. Administrators being reviewed must be given access to survey results and to other materials considered by the review committee along with an opportunity to respond or to comment before the committee prepares its report. Review committees will not consider anonymous submissions. Surveys should be administered in accord with customary practices designed to ensure the integrity of the process and to protect the identity of respondents by removing the names of respondents before survey results are released to the administrator under review, the Chancellor, or others. Other University officials with whom the administrator interacts routinely should also be asked to comment, particularly in the case of school deans with multicampus responsibilities.

IV. The Report
Prior to submitting a final report to the Chancellor, the review committee should meet separately with the official being reviewed and then with the Chancellor to discuss the findings of the report. The administrator under review should be given an opportunity to respond to the committee's findings before the committee meets with the Chancellor. The review committee then should make its report in writing to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will respond in writing to the review committee, noting any actions to be taken as a result of the committee's findings and recommendations. The Chancellor will provide the official reviewed with a copy. The report should consist of a narrative and critique, a summary of the committee's findings, any external consultant's reports, and recommendations. In the case of campus officers, the Chancellor will meet with the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee in executive session to discuss the report. In the case of School deans, the Chancellor will provide a report to the faculty of the school.

NOTE: The language of the introduction and of paragraph II.H. has been designed to mandate the periodic review of certain campus administrative officers while permitting flexibility in including other campus officers as circumstances warrant. The following list is indicative of officers who would be eligible for review under the procedures proposed for adoption. The Chancellor is already covered by University Procedures and thus is not included.