Review of Campus Administrators and Academic Deans (new title)

Scope

A foundational principle of Indiana University is its enduring partnership across its units, including faculty and librarians, to collectively advance the institution's mission. The establishment, revision, and retirement of academic policies will occur with consultation and input from the University Faculty Council.

Pursuant to Indiana Code (IC) 21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only.

This policy shall supersede all campus, school and college, program, department, center, institute, and unit policies on any core or regional campuses of Indiana University.  

This policy pertains to Chancellors and chief academic officers of IU Indianapolis, IU East, IU Kokomo, IU Northwest, IU South Bend, IU Southeast and IU Bloomington. 

This policy pertains to Chancellors, Chief Academic Officers, Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, and college or school Deans of all campuses. 

Back to top

Policy Statement

The president is responsible for the evaluation of their direct reports and for the organization of the process conducted to that end. In addition to the president’s annual assessment of chancellors and/or chief academic officer, the president, in collaboration with the University Faculty Council, serving in an advisory capacity, will conduct a fifth-year review of chancellors and/or chief academic officer using the following review procedures, which shall be referred to as the “Review.” 

The president must have latitude in determining which issues to emphasize in reviewing the performance of a chancellor and/or chief academic officer, but the Board of Trustees encourages the president to consider, among other things, the following areas: 

• Execution of the policies and strategies of the board and the president 
• Administration of all academic, faculty, and student programs and issues 
• Financial performance of the campus 
• Academic progress of the campus 
• Relationship of the campus to the geographic region served 
• Staff and faculty development and all human resources issues 
• The intangibles of creativity, growth, spirit, and vision 

Immediate supervisors are responsible for the evaluation of their direct reports and for the organization of the process conducted to that end. The responsible supervisor will collaborate with relevant faculty governance organizations in its advisory capacity. The evaluation review will consist of a formative review at the beginning of the second year of employment and a comprehensive review at the beginning of the fourth year. After that, the cadence for comprehensive review will continue to be every three years, unless required sooner. 

First-Year Formative Review 

The purpose of the formative review is to support professional growth, clarify expectations, provide developmental support, and to identify actionable areas for improvement that support university and unit goals.  

The Review shall consist of a constituent survey. The appropriate University Administration Office will coordinate procedures with the relevant university or campus supervisor and faculty governance organization. A qualified, third-party office (e.g. The Center for Survey Research, Institutional Analytics) will design and administer the survey and report results to the appropriate responsible supervisor. 

Third-Year Comprehensive Review 

The university conducts periodic comprehensive reviews of administrators to ensure effective leadership, accountability, and alignment with institutional goals. These reviews assess performance and strategic impact, incorporate appropriate stakeholder feedback, and inform decisions on reappointment and leadership continuity to support institutional excellence. 

The supervisor must have latitude in determining which issues to emphasize in reviewing the performance, but is encouraged to consider, among other things, the following areas: 

• Execution of institutional priorities and goals as articulated by the Board of Trustees and the President 

• Administration of all academic, faculty, and student programs  

• Financial performance of the campus/unit 

• Academic progress of the campus/unit 

• Relationship of the campus/unit to the geographic region/area served 

• Staff and faculty development and all human resources issues 

Principles for Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer Reviews 

Principles for Administrator Reviews

Baseline Data.The evaluation should be conducted on the basis of a job description provided by the president and reports of previous reviews. The chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review shall provide the Review Committee with a written assessment of their specific campus and personal performance goals, and shall meet with the Review Committee to provide an overview of the chancellor’s and/or chief academic officer role and activities, to discuss campus issues of particular importance, to indicate the range of constituencies bearing on the chancellor’s and/or chief academic officer activities, and to make suggestions concerning groups or individuals whose comments should be sought by the Review Committee.

Baseline Information Gathering

The evaluation will be conducted on the basis of a job description provided by the responsible supervisor and reports of previous reviews, including the recommendations of the formative review. 

The administrator under review will submit a written assessment of their campus-specific and personal performance goals to the Review Committee. The administrator will also meet with the Review Committee to provide an overview of their role and activities, discuss key campus issues, identify relevant constituencies involved in their work, and recommend groups or individuals from whom the Review Committee should seek input.

Review Coordination

The process should be coordinated by the president or the president’s designee. 

The appropriate University Administration Office will coordinate procedures with and provide reasonable and adequate support (e.g. staff, finances) to the respective university or campus supervisor and faculty governance organization. 

Before being finalized, the composition of the Review Committee shall be reviewed by the administrator under review, who may object to any nominee for cause. The responsible supervisor may give appropriate weight to these objections in forming the Review Committee.

a. Chancellor 

• Because the responsibilities of the Chancellor apply directly to the teaching and research mission of the campus, at least half of the members of the Review Committee will consist of faculty from the relevant campus. The appointees should be broadly representative of campus faculty.
• To ensure that there is appropriate representation of the campus and the community and other constituencies, the Review Committee may also include non-faculty representatives. 

b. Chief Academic Officers, Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, or the Campus-based Equivalents

• For positions that apply directly to the teaching and research mission of the campus, follow the Chancellor Review guidelines above.  

• For non-academic positions, the Review Committee will consist of representation relevant to the operational area of the campus community. 

c. College or School Dean 

• The majority of the members of each Review Committee will be full-time faculty from the unit whose Dean is being reviewed.  

• Relevant members of the university community may be nominated for membership on the Review Committee. 

Fifth-Year Review Components. The fifth-year evaluation should include information from the following:

1. The results of a faculty review process outlined in this document, and information gathered as the president deems appropriate; 
2. Information provided by the chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review describing their accomplishments. 

The review will include: 

1. Information gathered as the responsible supervisor determines to be appropriate 
2. Information provided by the administrator under review describing their accomplishments, goals, and objectives

The review process may include input from one or more peers, internal or external, as appropriate, who is familiar with the responsibilities and duties of the administrator under review.

All reports and relevant data will be submitted to the responsible supervisor and utilized in accordance with the supervisor's direction and this policy. 

The review process must be conducted with confidentiality, as required.

4. The evaluation process should include input from one or more peer reviewers familiar with the responsibilities and duties of individuals who serve in similar positions at comparable institutions. 

5. All reports and pertinent data should be submitted to the president and be utilized in accordance with the president's direction and this policy. 

6. The evaluation process must be conducted with dignity, confidentiality as permitted, and respect for all parties involved. 

7. The president reserves the right to vary these procedures as they deem appropriate and may inform the UFC of the reasons for doing so.

Back to top

Reason for Policy

The purpose of such reviews is to provide the president, the trustees, and the chancellorand/or chief academic officerwith broadly gathered information concerning the quality of leadership provided by the chancellorand/or chief academic officer; to recognize and encourage success; to identify areas in need of improvement; and to provide appropriate constituencies with the opportunity to assess the chancellor’s and/or chief academic officerleadership. Normally, the constituencies would include faculty, administration, staff, students, alumni and community leaders. Costs of the Review process shall be underwritten by the office of the president.

The purpose of administrator reviews is to provide supervisors and stakeholders broadly gathered information about the quality of leadership, to recognize and encourage success; to identify areas needing improvement; and to give appropriate constituencies the opportunity to assess university and campus administrators. The review is also intended to promote internal evaluation of the units for which the administrator is responsible.

Back to top

Procedures

Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer Review Procedures 

1. Frequency of Review. The Review shall be conducted early in the fifth year in office and in recurring intervals of five years thereafter. 
2. Organization of Review. Early in the spring semester of the year preceding a chancellor’s and/or chief academic officer’s review, the president of the university or the president's designee will send notice to the faculty council on that campus, and other relevant constituencies, announcing the formation of a Review Committee. The Review Committee shall be selected according to the following provisions: 
   1. Because the responsibilities of the chancellor and/or chief academic officer bear directly on the teaching and research mission of the campus, the President will endeavor to select approximately half of the members of the Review Committee  from the faculty of the campus. The president may seek nominations for these appointments from the appropriate elected campus nomination committee. That committee will submit one hundred percent more names than the total to be selected by the president, but the president has the sole discretion to make the final selection of all faculty appointments, which may include faculty other than those provided. The appointees should be broadly representative of campus faculty and should be predominately tenured faculty. The president shall retain the authority to appoint a limited number of non-tenured faculty when appropriate. 
   2. The president may also solicit nominations for non-faculty nominees from representative student and staff bodies, and from the chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review to ensure that there is appropriate representation of the campus and the community and other constituencies significantly involved with the chancellor and/or chief academic officer and campus. 
   3. The president shall review the lists of nominees with the chancellor and/or chief academic officer, who may object to the appointment of individuals for good cause. 
   4. The Faculty Council Agenda/Executive Committee may provide feedback to the president for their consideration in appointing the Review Committee Chair. 

3. Timing. The president shall convene the Review Committee before the close of the spring semester, or shortly before the beginning of the fall semester, in such a manner that at least one semester is available for completion of the Review process. The Review process is generally expected to be completed within one academic year. The faculty leader of the campus faculty council may be present at the first meeting. 

Timing  

The responsible supervisor will convene the Review Committee with enough time to allow at least one semester for completion, and within the academic year. The campus faculty governance organization’s faculty leader or a member of its executive committee will be invited to attend the first meeting. 

4. Peer Reviewers. One or more peer reviewers may be appointed by the president to assist the committee. The peer reviewer shall be an academic administrator knowledgeable about the role of the chancellor and/or chief academic officer at comparable institutions. The president, in consultation with both the chair of the Review Committee and the chancellor and/or chief academic officer, will select the peer reviewer. The peer reviewer shall compile a single report, to be submitted directly to the Review Committee chair and to the president. The chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review will have the opportunity to respond, in writing, to the peer review report at the time it is submitted. The Review Committee’s final report shall take note of the peer reviewer’s report. 

Peer Reviewers 

One or more peer reviewers, which may include a higher education consultant, may be appointed by the responsible supervisor to advise the committee. The peer reviewer shall be an administrator knowledgeable about similar roles from comparable institutions. The responsible supervisor, in consultation with both the chair of the Review Committee and the administrator under review, will select the peer reviewer. The peer reviewer will compile a single report, to be submitted directly to the Review Committee chair and to the responsible supervisor. The Review Committee’s final report will take note of the peer reviewer’s report. 

5.Outside Advisor. An outside advisor (such as a higher education consultant) may be used to assist the Review Committee with its processes at the request of the president. 

6. Basic Review Objectives. At a minimum, the review committee will address the following questions: 

1. Has the chancellor and/or chief academic officer provided leadership to the campus in setting clear goals and objectives? Are these appropriate for the campus? 
2. Has the chancellor and/or chief academic officer involved relevant constituencies in developing and adopting these goals? 
3. To what extent does the chancellorand/or chief academic officer facilitate the achievement of these goals? 
4. How effectively does the chancellor and/or chief academic officer represent the campus to persons outside the campus? 
5. How successful has the chancellor and/or chief academic officer been in managing the campus in the face of pressures? 
6. How is the campus perceived on a local, state, or national level? 

Review Questions 

At a minimum, the Review Committee will address the following, which may be adapted given the administrator under review’s role: 

1.  Has the administrator under review provided leadership to the campus/unit in setting clear goals and objectives? Are these appropriate for the campus/unit? 
2. Has the administrator under review involved relevant constituencies in developing and adopting these goals? 
3. To what extent does the administrator under review facilitate the achievement of these goals? 
4. How effectively does the administrator under review represent the campus/unit to persons outside the campus/unit? 
5. How successful has the administrator under review been in managing the campus/unit amid various pressures? 
6. What are the administrator under review’s strengths and weaknesses and their impact upon their effectiveness? 
7.  How is the campus/unit perceived by its constituents (students, faculty, and staff)? If applicable, how is the unit perceived throughout the university system? If applicable, how is the campus/unit perceived on a local, state, or national level? 

 7. Data Collection, Confidentiality, and Impartiality. The Review Committee shall gather data for the review. The committee may use documentary reviews, constituent surveys, and letters. The committee may also use interviews with campus and university-level administrators, chancellors and/or chief academic officer of other IU campuses, and representatives from a variety of constituencies, including staff, students, community members, and faculty of the chancellor’s and/or chief academic officer campus, including members of faculty governance. The committee also shall seek information from groups and individuals identified by the chancellor and/or chief academic officer. Open meetings to gather information pertinent to the Review are discouraged. The Review Committee shall devise its procedures to ensure and convey to participants the openness of the review to all information and views. 

Data Collection, Confidentiality, and Impartiality 

The Review Committee will gather data for the review. The Review Committee may use documentary reviews, constituent surveys, and letters. The Review Committee may also use interviews with campus and university- level administrators, Chancellors and/or Chief Academic Officer of other IU campuses, and representatives from a variety of constituencies, including staff, students, community members, and faculty of the administrator under review for the respective campus/unit, including members of the relevant faculty governance organizations. The Review Committee will also seek information from groups and individuals identified by the administrator under review. Open meetings to gather information relevant to the Review are discouraged. The Review Committee will develop its procedures to ensure and convey to participants 

that all information and viewpoints are invited and considered. Specific review data will vary based on the responsibilities of the administrator under review and their campus/unit. 

Individual comments must be submitted by identifiable individuals. Anonymous comments will not be included. While the Review Committee will attempt to keep comments and letters confidential, under Indiana State law, the university cannot assure confidentiality.

8. Survey. The Review Committee may utilize a survey as part of the review. 

The survey shall be developed and administered by a professional survey agency. Questions shall be formulated by the agency in consultation with the Review Committee and the president or the president's designee. The survey shall not contain written comments. 

The survey will be administered to tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track faculty members. Data for different faculty appointment categories may be disaggregated in reporting. Summary survey results shall be reported confidentially to the president, the chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review, the Review Committee, and the agenda committee/executive committee of the campus faculty council. A summary of these survey results will be included in the final report of the Review Committee. 

The use of surveys to gather information from other constituencies (e.g., community members, staff, alumni) may be considered by the Review Committee. Should a decision be made to conduct such surveys, they shall be developed and administered in the same manner as the faculty survey. 

Survey 

Surveys shall be conducted as follows: 

1. The responsible supervisor will appoint an independent agent (e.g., The Center for Survey Research, Institutional Analytics) to evaluate and administer the survey. 
2. The survey will be designed with three sections: 
   1. The executive committee of the relevant faculty governance organization, in consultation with the survey agent, will draft approximately 10 questions that align with those used for evaluating administrators with similar roles. These questions will focus on leadership, administrative effectiveness, faculty engagement, and program development. 
   2. The relevant unit-level body representing the administrator under review will prepare approximately five unit‑specific questions for the survey. 
   3. A section for qualitative comments will be included.
3. The survey agent will distribute the survey to an appropriate identified audience and collect responses within a set timeframe. The agent will tabulate the results and compile comments without identifying respondents. The agent will follow established procedures to protect the integrity of the process and ensure anonymity, including removing all names before releasing results to the administrator under review, the responsible supervisor, or other authorized recipients. 

9. Reporting. Prior to submitting a final report to the president, the Review Committee shall meet separately with the chancellor and/or chief academic officer being reviewed and then with the president to discuss the findings of the report. The chancellor and/or chief academic officer shall be given an opportunity to provide the Review Committee with a written response to its findings. The Review Committee then shall provide a final written report to the president containing a summary of its findings and recommendations and the response of the chancellor and/or chief academic officer. 

If there are serious disagreements within the Review Committee about the content of the report, a minority report may be submitted with the Review Committee report. The president will respond to the Review Committee, discussing actions to be taken as a result of the committee’s findings and recommendations. 

The committee’s final report, any minority reports, and the president’s response shall be made available to the chancellor and/or chief academic officer under review, and may be provided to the UFC Agenda Committee and the executive committee of the campus faculty council for advisory feedback. 

After receiving the report, the UFC Agenda Committee and the executive committee of the campus faculty council will invite the Review Committee chair to present an oral summary report in executive session to their respective councils, following Academic Handbook procedures. 

The leader of the campus faculty council and the chair of the Review Committee may provide advisory feedback to the president. The President will determine what elements of the final report, minority reports, and the president’s response should be included in a public summary document; however, the summary document must include an accurate characterization of the results of any surveys conducted by the Review Committee. The Review Committee report, the minority report, and the public summary may not quote directly from documents. 

Reporting 

Pre-report meetings 

1. Before submitting a final report to the responsible supervisor, the Review Committee will:  
   • Meet separately with the administrator under review. 
   • Then meet with the responsible supervisor. 
2. The purpose of both meetings is to discuss the committee’s findings. 
3. The administrator under review will be given an opportunity to respond to the committee’s findings. 

Preparation of and Access to the Final Report 

1. After considering the administrator under review’s response, the Review Committee will prepare its final written report and submit it to the responsible supervisor. 
2. If serious disagreements exist within the Review Committee regarding the report’s content, a minority report may be submitted along with the Review Committee’s final report. 
3. The final report and any minority reports will be made available to the administrator under review.

Executive Summary 

1. The Review Committee will produce an executive summary. 
2. The responsible supervisor will determine which elements are included in the summary. 
3. The executive summary must:  
   • Accurately characterize the results of any surveys conducted by the Review Committee. 
   • Avoid directly quoting from documents in the final report. 

Distribution and Presentation 

1. The executive summary will be made available to the administrator under review and responsible supervisor. 
2. The executive summary will be provided to the executive committee of the relevant faculty governance organization. 
3. After receiving the summary, the president of that faculty governance organization will deliver an oral summary in executive session to their respective councils. 

Back to top

History

This policy became effective by approval of the Board of Trustees.

(Board of Trustees, November 3, 2006)

In July 2024, a reference to the renamed IU Indianapolis campus was updated in this policy.

June 2025- Substantive revisions and update Responsible Office and Responsible Administrator

[Month] [Year]- Substantive revisions

Back to top