COMMITTEE POLICIES (effective September 2000-August 2009)

Timeline

  • Evaluations shall be collected in time for the committee's summary to become part of the administrator's third- or fifth-year review process. The Committee's narrative summary will be released to faculty concurrent with the University's report on the overall results of the administrator's review.

Positions evaluated

  • Campus-wide: chancellor; vice chancellor for academic affairs; dean of the graduate school
  • System-wide: president
  • Schools, colleges, and libraries: deans with a faculty constituency. Evaluated only by raters in the unit, although letters are invited from other eligible faculty raters familiar with that dean's work.
  • Raters are given an opportunity to evaluate each administrator on questions of administrative process common to all administrators, as well as specific performance-based questions focused on the particular objectives of each administrator.
  • The College of Architecture and Planning (A&P) is part of the University of Colorado at Denver, but A&P undergraduate students are Boulder campus students, some A&P faculty are housed on the Boulder campus, and the A&P dean is part of the UCB Council of Deans. A recommendation of whether to include the A&P Dean in the revised AAP will be made by the Committee to the BFA for their vote at the time of that administrator's next review.

Eligible raters

  • All individuals (except administrators who are being evaluated) with active appointments on the Boulder Campus in any eligible job title are eligible raters.

Eligible job titles

  • Regular, Research, Adjoint, Adjunct, Attendant and In-residence faculty
    • Professor
    • Associate Professor
    • Assistant Professor
    • Sr. Instructor
    • Instructor
  • Other eligible job titles
    • Museum Curator
    • Principal and Co-Principal investigators
    • Faculty Directors and Chairs
    • Institute Directors
  • Ineligible job titles
    • Clinical faculty
    • Research Associates and Assistants
    • Visiting Professors
    • Lecturer
    • Fellows
    • Honorarium

Notes

  • The committee may make exceptions to these rules on a case-by-case basis in extraordinary circumstances.
  • Final authority for determining eligibility of raters lies with the committee.

What's provided to raters

  • A letter of invitation and instructions
  • A Satisfaction Survey focused on campus-wide issues and policies
  • A Statement of Achievements and Activities for each administrator to be evaluated
  • An envelope for returning the ratings and comments
  • Administrators will be offered the opportunity to suggest questions for the performance-based section of the survey, although the AAP committee will be the final arbiter of what is asked.

Information collected from raters

  • Ratings on performance on selected dimensions. Ratings are on a scale of 1 - 5, Very Ineffective to Very Effective; they include a response category of "Don't Know."
  • Comments on each question in the administrator survey.
  • No rater identification by name, rank, or department are given. Raters are invited to self-identify their school or college. Mailing labels on the envelopes are designed to peel off so that they cannot be used to identify raters.

Collection methods

  • Packets are sent by campus mail to all raters the same day
  • Requests to PBA or the committee for additional packets will be handled as follows:
    • If PBA determines that the individual is eligible and was not included in the general mailing, PBA will send a packet immediately.
    • If PBA determines that the individual is eligible and was sent a packet, PBA will send a duplicate packet only on receipt of written or e-mail confirmation from the rater or department/unit that the original packet was lost, discarded, or never received.
    • If PBA determines that the individual(s) are not normally eligible, the individual and the committee will be informed. The committee can elect to include them upon deliberation of the circumstances.
  • The letter to raters cites a deadline for return, which is approximately three weeks after mail-out.
  • Raters are asked to send their ratings and comments to PBA via campus mail.
  • A reminder notice is published in the Silver and Gold two weeks after mail out.
  • Ratings and comments received after October 24th are not processed.

Processing ratings and comments

  • Ratings will be processed by PBA using standard statistical procedures.
  • All narrative comments are transcribed. They are not edited in any way, even to remove any rater self-identification. The form and letter to raters clearly state that transcribed comments will go to the AAP Committee, the administrator and the administrator's supervisor.
  • Comments will be handled only by PBA and scanning staff who can be relied upon to maintain confidentiality.
  • Rating forms and comments from one evaluation cycle will be kept by PBA for one year, then discarded.

Release of results

  • Narrative summaries of the evaluations written by the committee and framed in terms of "Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement," are released to the faculty as part of the review or reappointment results by the administrators' supervisors. All summaries will also be posted to the PBA website.
  • A summary of the data and the committee's narrative summaries will be reported to the BFA Executive Committee in an Executive session with the administrator's supervisor.
  • Administrators receive their averages and distributions on each item, the committee's narrative summary, and all transcribed comments.
  • Supervisors receive the AAP Committee's report as well as the summary-data results for all administrators reporting to them, including the transcribed comments. Supervisors are given the opportunity to consult with the subcommittee responsible for each report before the final report is approved by the committee.
  • The Web posting and packets for administrators and supervisors are reviewed by the committee chair before release.
  • Results are released as part of the supervisor's report to the faculty of the results of the administrator's review.

The role of Planning, Budget and Analysis

  • Implement committee decisions
  • Revise, order, print, and distribute forms
  • Handle returned forms and arrange scanning and transcription
  • Maintain security of returned forms
  • Analyze data to be released to AAP Committee and supervisor of any administrator evaluated. Analysis will include a transcription of comments organized according to rating on each question.
  • Advise the committee on psychometric and logistical issues
  • Maintain program policies
  • Consult with the committee on policy issues
  • Maintain the AAP continuing budget ($5,075 in 98-99), used for up to $3,000 in annual direct expenses (forms and other materials, printing, delivery, scanning, etc.) plus PBA staff time.
  • Note that the AAP is now administered online as of Fall 2006. Therefore, some of PBA's tasks above no longer apply (e.g., printing forms).