º£½ÇÉçÇø

(Approved by the º£½ÇÉçÇøBoard of Trustees 1/17/2019; updated by the º£½ÇÉçÇøBoard of Trustees 9/12/19 and 11/17/22)

Introduction

The Board of Trustees shall evaluate the university President on an annual basis. The evaluation process shall facilitate clear communication between the Board and the President, reflect best practices and promote execution of the university strategic plan.

Principles

The Board of Trustees believes six principles should guide and inform the Presidential evaluation process:

1. The evaluation should derive from explicit values of the university and from its strategic plan.
2. The evaluation process should set specific annual goals for the President.
3. Evaluating the President is a non-delegable responsibility of the Board of Trustees. While other viewpoints may be considered, specifically those of the faculty, the Board must take direct responsibility for the evaluation.
4. The evaluation process should be a reciprocal process that includes a self-evaluation from the President.
5. The evaluation should focus on how well the President advances the major institutional objectives of the university.
6. A formal review should be conducted annually, immediately following the academic year. Informal evaluations should occur more frequently, in the form of informal conversations between the President and the Board Chair.

Evaluation Process and Timeline

1. The President and Board shall establish goals and objectives by July 1 of each year.
2. The President shall update the Board on progress made with respect to goals and objectives at each of the regularly scheduled quarterly Board meetings.
3. The Board shall undertake a performance evaluation of the President on an annual basis.
4. By July 1, the President shall initiate the evaluation process by preparing and submitting a self-evaluation that addresses higher level activities and goals and objectives for the just concluded year. The President shall submit his self-evaluation to the Board chair by August 1 of each year.
5. The Board chair (“Chair”) shall distribute the President’s self-evaluation and a summary of current year goals to all members of the Board.
6. Members of the Board shall review the President’s self-evaluation.
7. The evaluation process shall be conducted within ninety (90) days following the conclusion of each contract year and on or before June 30th for the final contract year.
8. The Chair shall request input from the Chair of the Board of Governors, who may involve the Chancellor, during the annual evaluation process pertaining to responsiveness to the Board of Governors’ strategic goals, priorities, and recommendations and compliance with systemwide regulations and initiatives.
9. The Chair shall convene a meeting of the Board to discuss the President’s performance for the year. The Board shall also consider the award of incentive compensation for the just concluded year. The award of incentive compensation shall be based on the Board’s assessment, in its sole and absolute discretion, of the President’s achievement of mutually agreed upon written goals and objectives. The Board may further review the President’s compensation annually, at its discretion.
10. The Chair shall then prepare a written evaluation and meet with the President to review the evaluation.

Peer Review

Commencing in 2025 and every third year thereafter, or at such other interval as the Board of Trustees deems appropriate, the Board shall engage an outside consultant to design and conduct a peer review assessment of the performance of the university and its President. Such peer review assessment shall be designed to compare º£½ÇÉçÇøwith other comparable universities that represent the highest performing universities of comparable size and mission. The peer review process shall, among other things, solicit feedback from faculty, staff, students and the community. The peer review shall be conducted in a manner so that the confidentiality of survey individuals providing feedback is maintained. The peer review shall supplement, and not replace, the annual performance evaluation of the president.

Conclusion

Evaluating and supporting the President is among the most important responsibilities of the Board of Trustees. We believe the process described in this report reflects best practices for Presidential evaluation and, if implemented, will cause º£½ÇÉçÇøto reside among the best universities in this important responsibility.