Section 3: Comprehensive Standards

3.2.10 The institution evaluates the effectiveness of it administrators, including the chief executive officer, on a periodic basis.

Judgment of Compliance:
Compliance

Narrative/Justification for Judgment of Compliance:
Christopher Newport University is in compliance with this comprehensive standard. Administrative faculty positions require the performance of work directly related to the management of the educational, auxiliary and general activities of the University, department or subdivision thereof. Incumbents in these positions exercise discretion and independent judgment and generally direct the work of others. The organization reporting relationship normally does not go lower than two levels below the President.

Professional faculty positions require advanced learning and experience acquired by prolonged formal instruction and/or specialized work experience. Incumbents in these positions regularly exercise professional discretion and judgment. This category includes such positions as counselors, librarians and other professional positions serving athletics, development functions or activities, education, research, or student affairs.

Each administrative and professional faculty member's performance is to be formally evaluated annually. This policy applies to all administrative and professional faculty members and all those who supervise administrative and professional faculty members.

CNU Board of Visitors has the authority to establish policy concerning the employment of individuals at the university. Changes in Administrative and Professional faculty personnel regulations and information are authorized by the President after consultation with the Provost or the appropriate Vice President(s) and University constituencies.

Until AY 2005, the supervisor of each Administrative or Professional faculty member was responsible for an annual evaluation of the faculty member prior to the beginning of each new fiscal year. The supervisor could solicit information from the employee's files, peers, and subordinates, but the responsibility for the evaluation was with the supervisor. In AY 2004, the process was begun to develop more standardized formats for supervisors to use and to add a performance planning component to the procedure.

A performance review was developed based upon research in performance appraisal studies and research of instruments used at other universities. The final evaluation form adopted by CNU has eight general performance standards that administrators are evaluated on and additional performance goals that are developed as part of the yearly performance planning process. The rating scale is a five point scale, ranging from “exceptional” to “does not meet expectations”. There is space to explain the rationale for a rating. This is especially encouraged if an above or below average rating is given.

The development of the evaluation form, complete with feedback from a committee of administrative/professional faculty and a final review by the Virginia Attorney General's office, was completed in 2005. The first performance evaluation using the new instrument was completed in January, 2006. This was a performance evaluation for the period June 2005 through January 2006. Employees met with supervisors and discussed the evaluation ratings and how performance could be improved. At that time, the performance planning process component had not been fully developed. It had been determined that expectations for performance are central to conducting effective performance evaluations. Two levels of expectations, general performance expectations and additional performance goals, are now incorporated in CNU's performance planning system. It was decided by executive level administrators and the Office of Human Resources that this component needed to be fully explained and employees trained before using the evaluation instrument for the January – June 2006 time period. The first complete cycle, that includes the planning component, began with supervisors meeting with AP faculty in June, 2006 to set individual work-related goals for the period July 2006 – June, 2007. Administrative and professional faculty have on file in the Office of Human Resources the personalized goals each has set for the 2006 AY. The number of personal goals for each employee varies from at least two to six or more. The AP faculty will be evaluated on their achievements of these goals and the general performance expectations in July, 2007.

The performance evaluation process requires two forms, the Administrative and Professional Faculty Performance Plan (AP-PerfPln) and the Administrative and Professional Faculty Performance Review (AP-Rev). The supervisor and employee develop the performance plan and then the plan, which includes the personalized goals, is sent to a reviewer. The reviewer is the person to whom the supervisor reports. One year later, the supervisor completes the performance review on paper, sends the review to the reviewer for his or her signature, and then conducts a performance review interview with the employee. The employee is then asked to sign the performance review and has the opportunity to add his or her comments concerning the review or the ratings. The Office of Human Resources is responsible for communicating the timeline for the evaluations each year.

The new procedure and policy for administrative and professional faculty evaluations will soon be added as an addendum to the on-line version of the University Handbook. The complete policy and procedure for AP evaluations delineates the method for the annual performance planning and evaluation system.

Evaluation of the President of the University
The President of the University is appointed by and reports to the Board of Visitors. The by-laws of the Board of Visitors is based upon the powers granted in the Code of Virginia. Article III of the Board of Visitors by-laws states that “The Board shall control and expend the funds of the University and any appropriation hereafter provided; control all real estate and personal property of the University; make all needful rules and regulations concerning the University, appoint the president who shall be its chief executive officer, and all teachers; fix their salaries; provide for the employment of other personnel as required; and generally direct the affairs of the University.

Article V of the by-laws stipulates that when the chief executive officer position becomes vacant, the Rector of the Board of Visitors appoints and chairs a Special Committee on the Nomination of a President from among the members of the Board, consisting of no fewer than five members, to seek and recommend to the Board a person to fill the vacancy. Decisions of the Board require a quorum, set by statute at seven members.

Support Documentation:
AP Faculty Performance Plan
AP Faculty Performance Review
AP Performance Planning and Evaluation Policy
Approval by Virginia Attorney General
Board of Visitor's By-laws
President’s Performance Increase
Board of Visitors’ Minutes – November 14, 2005
Virginia Department of Human Resources Memo

Additional Live Web Resources:
None