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 Dean 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 college goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and five- year reappointment reviews conducted by the Provost.

1. Annual evaluations of the Dean of the College of Engineering should be conducted by the Dean College Review Committee (DCRC) composed of the tenured members of the elected College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC). A department that is not represented on the CRC by a tenured faculty member shall elect a representative to the DCRC from the tenured faculty members of the Department.

2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Dean submits to the DCRC and to the College 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 for the Dean in the William States Lee College of Engineering, if appropriate the Dean will also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April 1 of the current academic year.

3. Members of the College faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Dean's performance to the DCRC. While the DCRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as "What did the Dean do well this year?" "What could this Dean do to improve his/her performance?" and "What other issues do you believe deserve the Dean's attention in the coming year?" The College may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The DCRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The DCRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Dean's performance, the DCRC 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 Dean's effectiveness. The DCRC's report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.

4. The DCRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Dean for his/her review and comments. The DCRC and the Dean may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Dean may simply reply in writing to the DCRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Dean indicating that he/she has read the report. The Dean'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 Dean and any minority reports from the DCRC, will be forwarded to the Provost by May 15.

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