Preamble:  According to guidelines passed by the Faculty Council, an annual review needs to be thorough, fair, and unbiased. An evaluation process designed to improve the performance of the Chair requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. The underlying purpose of the review process should be to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of departmental goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and three-year reappointment reviews conducted by the Dean of the College of Engineering.

I. Annual evaluations of Department Chairs should be conducted by the tenured members of the elected Departmental Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (DRC). In the event that a DRC does not have at least three tenured faculty members, the Department faculty shall elect the necessary additional members from the remaining tenured faculty members in the Department. Tenured faculty members who were deemed ineligible for the DRC because of either review for promotion or service on the College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC) will be eligible to serve on the Chair Department Review Committee (CDRC).

2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Chair submits to the CDRC and to the Department faculty a summary of his/her accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. Although the evaluation is to be based on the list of responsibilities identified in the Job Description of Chairpersons in the William States Lee College of Engineering, the Chair may also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April I of the current academic year.

3. Members of the Department faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Chair's performance to the CDRC. While the CDRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as "What did the Chair do well this year?" "What could this Chair do to improve his/her performance?" and "What other issues do you believe deserve the Chair's attention in the coming year?" The Department may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The CDRC may also wish to seek input from one or more Chairs of other departments in the College of Engineering. The CDRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The CDRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Chair's performance, the CDRC should not be limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses but should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and to make recommendations with the goal of improving the Chair's effectiveness. The CDRC's report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.

4. The CDRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Chair for his/her review and comments.  The CDRC and the Chair may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Chair may simply reply in writing to the CDRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Chair indicating that he/she has read the report.  The Chair's signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but merely that he/she has read it. The signed final report, along with any letter of disagreement or explanation by the Chair and any minority reports from the CDRC, will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Engineering by May 15.

5. After discussing the CDRC's report with the Chair, the Dean prepares a summary of both the CDRC's report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the Chair and the Dean with respect to any recommendations made by the CDRC. The Dean will meet with the CDRC at the beginning of the following academic year to discuss the Dean's recommendations.