Evaluation of Senior-Level Administrators at Binghamton University 

Presentation to University Faculty Senate,  140th Plenary 
Peter Knuepfer, Binghamton University

A Bit of History 

  On October 25, 1994, the Faculty Senate of the State University of New York at 
Binghamton voted to establish a system for evaluation of the performance of 
University administrators. 

  The Faculty chose to make reports of these committees confidential and 
distributed only to the administrator being evaluated, the immediate supervisor of 
the administrator, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

Provisions 

  Evaluation Coordinating Committee established to oversee process 

  Academic administrators to be evaluated at least once every four years 

  Administrators to be evaluated are those who have significant responsibilities 
involving them in the academic program, including 
  	– President; Provost; Deans; Vice Provosts; 
     	Associate VP for Computing and Educational Technologies; 
     	Director of Libraries; Director of Health, Physical Education, and Athletics; 
	Director of Continuing Education and Outreach

Evaluation Coordinating Committee 

  Nine-member committee of members of the Faculty Senate, chosen by 
secret ballot from the entire Senate membership. 

  Representative of the academic units: 1 each from the four 
professional schools, 3 from Arts and Sciences (1 from each division), 1 
from libraries, 1 from HEPA 

  2-year terms


Process 

  Evaluation Coordinating Committee identifies which administrator(s) 
is/are due for evaluation 

  Committee contacts faculty in relevant school to oversee evaluation of Dean; 
committee directly oversees evaluation of University-wide administrators 

  ECC inform administrator to be evaluated and request documentation such as 
a current vita, administrator’s job description, and a narrative self-evaluation 

  ECC establishes or guides School faculty in establishing an evaluation 
instrument, typically a survey sent to appropriate faculty members

  ECC compiles reports from relevant academic units and/or results of survey of faculty 

  ECC develops a draft report that includes a summary of the process, a summary of 
survey results and/or academic unit reports, and a summary of a vote for or 
against renewal by relevant faculty 

  Report is submitted to administrator being evaluated for comment 

  Final report forwarded to Executive Committee, administrator, and administrator’s superior

Some Reflections after a decade 

  Process preserves anonymity and fosters frank evaluation because of confidentiality 
of reports 

  Reluctance by some units to review deans; reluctance by ECC to review 
President and Provost in recent years 

  Confidentiality of results means that faculty don’t actually know about the 
performance of their administrators (or at least how that performance is viewed by 
others). 

  Administration has not always appreciated timing or message from evaluation.