PS-10.A.12 - Annual Evaluation of Academic Deans
Effective Date: April 27, 2020
Issue #: 5
President: Dr. Juan Sanchez Munoz
This PS sets forth the process for obtaining faculty input for the annual evaluation of academic deans at the University of Houston-Downtown (see PS 02.B.06). The processes outlined in this policy (PS 10.A.12), jointly with those in PS 02.B.06, are intended to promote accountability, enhanced professional growth, and the supply of information that will assist in the annual assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the academic deans.
There are no definitions associated with this policy statement.
3.1 Faculty input on the performance of an academic dean is a crucial component of a meaningful annual evaluation of the dean. Although the procedures for evaluation of a dean must be set forth in the Staff Evaluation Policy (PS 02.B.06), the current policy is retained to assert the faculty role in the evaluation of a dean and to formalize and facilitate the faculty role in further expansion of policy on the administrative functions and the performance of deans.
3.2 The annual evaluation of a dean is based upon an assessment of the dean's activities during the preceding year and is conducted by the vice president for academic affairs (see PS 02.B.06).
3.3 A questionnaire on administrative performance is distributed by the vice president for academic affairs to all college faculty, lecturers and other professional colleagues that the vice president for academic affairs designates. The timeline for the administration of the questionnaire is established in PS 02.B.06.
4.1 The questionnaire to evaluate academic deans is administered each year by the Office of the Provost and is sent to faculty in the form of an online survey.
4.2 Modification to the dean evaluation questionnaire will be in the form of a cooperative effort between the Office of the Provost and the Faculty Senate, and shall involve consultation with the Deans Council. A modified iteration of the questionnaire may be administered only upon approval by the Faculty Senate.
5. Review Process
Responsible Party (Reviewer): Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Review: As needed
Signed original on file in Human Resources.
6. Policy History
Issue # 4: 12/15/86
Issue dates for previous versions are not available.