Criteria

Evaluations for Chairs/Directors should be conducted in the same manner as all faculty within the Unit with the inclusion of a personal narrative written by the Chair/Director. The personal narrative is considered a confidential document and is not forwarded to the Office of Faculty Affairs. The typical Chair/Director workload formula is 20% research, 20% teaching, and 60% service, unless otherwise stated in offer letter.

Questions pertaining to performance evaluations for Chairs/Directors should be directed to the Divisional Dean.

Each Chair/Director is evaluated in the major areas of personnel, budget, unit leadership and other responsibilities. It is suggested that Chairs/Directors address the questions outlined below when preparing their personal narrative.

Personnel:

  • Are policies known and followed? Does the Chair/Director check the policies? Does the Chair/Director ask for help/advice when appropriate?
  • Do personnel cases come in on time? Are folders complete? Has attention been paid over time to establishing "multiple measures of teaching"? Have any/all issues with the case been addressed at the primary unit level?
  • Are issues with faculty, staff, and students addressed adequately/correctly at the unit level? Does the Chair/Director look for "win-win" solutions if possible?
  • Are there faculty complaints and grievances coming out of the unit that suggest problems in management or communication within the unit?
  • Are recruitment and hiring activities well managed?
  • Are department policies laid out and followed?
  • What's the size and complexity of the workload?

Budget:

  • Are policies known and followed?
  • Does the Chair keep track of the overall budget and are they aware of problems/issues? Do they work effectively with the budget office to respond to inquiries and solve problems?
  • Is the department in deficit or not? On a yearly basis? Do they have deficit reduction plans if they have a deficit? Does the Chair take responsibility for dealing with faculty members who chronically overspend?
  • Does the department interact effectively with their Financial Service Center? Is relevant information communicated in a timely manner?
  • Is the Leaves and Replacements database used correctly?
  • What is the size and complexity of the budget?

Unit Leadership:

  • Does the department function well as a unit?
  • Do faculty generally feel that they have a say in departmental decision and in planning?
  • Does the department have a "vision" of their future?
  • Does the Chair/Director interact well with cognate units and neighboring units on common issues?

Other (Administrative, Outreach, Communication, Fundraising):

  • Does the Chair give a "heads up" to the Dean's office when needed?
  • Does the Chair do an effective job of representing the department to the college? The campus? The outside community?
  • Does the Chair respond to requests form the Dean's office in a timely manner?
  • Does the Chair demonstrate common sense when dealing with issues?
  • Any other relevant activities that should be considered?

50/50 Rule

Individuals are included on the dean's list relative to the period for which they are being evaluated. All merit evaluations are for the calendar year (Jan. to Dec. 20XX). Therefore, if a faculty member became Chair/Dean in Jan. 2018, the individual would not be on the dean's list this spring as that individual did not perform service for the dean's office during the 2017 calendar year. In this example, the individual's line and their stipend line would go on the department’s roster. The previous or outgoing Chair/Director would be on the dean's list.

If the individual became a Chair/Director during the middle of 2017, then that implies there was both an "outgoing" and "incoming" Chair/Director performing service during 2017. In this example, the "outgoing" Chair/Director salary and stipend will be split 50% on the dean's list and 50% on the department roster. The "incoming" Chair/Director salary and stipend will also be split 50% on the dean's list and 50% on the unit's roster.

This means that both the "outgoing" or former chair/Director need to submit a department evaluation for that period along with a personal narrative such that the deans have appropriate materials in which to evaluate both individuals performance during 2017.

Process

  • Chair or director submits personal narrative of accomplishments to unit along with Faculty Report of Professional Activities (FRPA) and any other customer reports for unit evaluation.
  • Unit evaluates chair or director according to its unit criteria, using the formula of 20% research, 20% teaching and 60% service.
  • Unit forwards the following to aspa@colorado.edu via DocuSign:
    • Faculty Performance Rating Form (a Faculty Performance Rating word document is also available) for Jan. to Dec. 20XX.
      • The chair or director should sign on the "Employee Signature" line.
      • A representative from the unit's Annual Merit Evaluation Committee (also known as the Salary Committee) should sign on the "Rater/Supervisor Signature" line.
    • Personal Narrative of Chair/Director.
    • Supporting criteria documents pertaining to the evaluation rating.
  • Unit retains copies of the above documents in unit personnel files.
  • New this year: Each unit will add the faculty evaluation score to the Merit Allocation spreadsheet and return to the College of Arts and Sciences Budget Office which will be forwarded to the Provost’s Office.
  • Dean's Office will forward a copy of the Faculty Performance Rating document to the Office of Faculty Affairs.