Evaluations of Officers

This campus policy serves to clarify the CU-Boulder campus practices of conducting annual, preliminary, and comprehensive evaluations for all campus officers. Campus officers include the following positions:

Provost, vice chancellor, vice provost, associate vice chancellor, executive director for budget and finance , and dean.

Background

1. Regent policy 11-F. requires annual evaluations of all officers and exempt professionals.
2. Regent policy 3-G. used to require preliminary evaluations of officers but was amended in September 1998. The Boulder campus has continued the practice of conducting preliminary evaluations of all officers in the third- year of the officer’s appointment.
3. Article 3 of the Laws of the Regents requires there be a five-year comprehensive evaluation for “ . . . chancellors, vice chancellors, and deans.” The Boulder campus has continued the practice of conducting a comprehensive evaluation for all officers every five years.

Purpose

This policy attempts to:

1. Outline the procedures to be used for conducting annual, preliminary, and comprehensive evaluations for Boulder campus officers.
2. Substantiate the Boulder campus’ continued practice of conducting preliminary evaluations for officers in the third-year of an officer’s appointment; and
3. Articulate the requirement that all Boulder campus officers will be comprehensively evaluated every five years of the officer’s appointment despite the amendments to the Laws of the Regents, Article 3.D., requiring comprehensive evaluations of vice chancellors and deans only.

Types of evaluations

The Office of the Chancellor is responsible for ensuring compliance with both Regent policy 3.G. and the campus policy on the evaluation of officers (2003), and for maintaining a master schedule of officer evaluations. This schedule, along with a notice of the officers due for an evaluation, will be distributed at the beginning of the academic year.

• Annual Evaluation
  An annual evaluation is completed for all officers as a part of the annual compensation adjustment process. An annual performance rating sheet and officer evaluation questionnaire are attached (Appendix A). Also see Board of Regents Policy 11-F. 1, Salary Plan for Officers and Exempt Professionals” (2000).
  
  
• Preliminary Evaluation
  The preliminary evaluation is designed to provide officers with constructive feedback on their accomplishments during the third-year of their appointment. The preliminary evaluation is an opportunity for the newly appointed officer to strengthen his or her performance by receiving an assessment from the supervising or hiring authority. Preliminary evaluations are conducted by the supervising or hiring authority in the third-year of the officer’s appointment. The officer and supervising or hiring authority will review the results of the preliminary evaluation and agree upon objectives, priorities, and expectations of performance. The officer is given the opportunity to provide a statement of accomplishments, or a self-evaluation, up to two pages in length. The supervising or hiring authority solicits feedback from administrators, faculty, staff, and/or students who work with the officer on a regular basis.
  
  
• Comprehensive Evaluation
  The purpose of the comprehensive evaluation is to assess the officer’s fulfillment of long-term responsibilities, including the fulfillment of objectives, priorities, and expectations of performance over a five-year period. Comprehensive evaluations are conducted by the supervising or hiring authority not less frequently than once in each five years of service in a position. The officer under evaluation is given the opportunity to provide a statement of accomplishments (or self-evaluation), and long-term objectives. Regent policy 3-G.D., “Conditions of Appointments and Evaluations of Officers and Exempt Professionals,” has established that comprehensive evaluations are not tied to the continuation of an officer in his or her position.

Procedures

Preliminary and Comprehensive Evaluations:

1. Completed evaluation summaries of all officers are due to the Office of the Chancellor by the end of the academic year in which they are scheduled.
2. All information created or received as a part of any evaluation shall be placed in the officer’s personnel file and shall be considered confidential. A summary report of the evaluation will be placed in the officer’s personnel file and will also remain on file in the Office of the Chancellor. The summary report may become public in response to an open records request (per C.R.F. 24-72-203).
3. A supervisor may elect to conduct a comprehensive evaluation for an officer at any time during an officer’s appointment, as long as the employee is notified at the beginning of the evaluation period.
4. In compliance with the Laws of the Regents, comprehensive evaluations of the provost, vice provosts, vice chancellors and deans are the only evaluations that will be forwarded to the President and the Board of Regents.
5. It is the responsibility of the supervising and/or hiring authority to determine the appropriate method for evaluations, and to notify the officer of that method in writing prior to the start of the evaluation. Evaluation criteria may include, but are not limited to:
   1. Effectiveness of working relationships;
   2. Respect for, accessibility to, and communication with peers and other constituencies;
   3. Open and timely decision-making process;
   4. Leadership in assigned responsibilities;
   5. Commitment to professional growth and encouragement of innovation and creativity for staff;
   6. Implementation of affirmative action and equal opportunity policies and leadership in promoting diversity within the University community;
   7. Administration of fiscal resources;
   8. Management and support of personnel and unit morale; and
   9. Technical competence in areas of expertise related to position.
6. Preliminary evaluations should include the following:
   1. Comments from at least eight to ten internal constituents. When soliciting comments from constituents, use the evaluation criteria noted above.
   2. The officer’s statement of accomplishments or self-evaluations can be one to two pages in length.
   3. AAP summary report (chancellor, provost, deans only) will be included when available.
7. Comprehensive evaluations should include the following:
   1. Comments from internal and external constituents. When soliciting comments from constituents, use the evaluation criteria noted above.
   2. The officer’s statement of accomplishments or self-evaluation should include an assessment of the officer’s position description and function in the campus organizational structure.
   3. AAP summary report (chancellor, provost, deans only) will be included when available.

Approval Date: October 14, 2003
Approved by: Richard L. Byyny, M.D.