Per NDSU Policy 327 evaluation of Academic Administrators, administrators subject to review under these procedures include the Deans of the seven academic colleges, the Dean of the Libraries, the Dean of the College of Graduate and Interdisciplinary Studies, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Vice Provost for Faculty and Equity, the Vice President for Research and Creative Development and the Vice President for Information Technology.

The Provost or designee will notify the administrator of the pending performance review, which will begin at the start of an academic year and conclude two weeks prior to the deadline for submitting annual reviews. During the year of review, the comprehensive review will serve as the annual review

The Provost will appoint a committee to conduct the review. Committee makeup will be representative of the stakeholder groups that interact with the administrator.  Committee work will be facilitated by a neutral party. The Provost will present the committee with its charge, including any special areas of focus for the review.

The committee will review the following materials:

• Job description and mission of the office represented
• Annual evaluations
• A statement of five or fewer pages completed by the administrator that outlines accomplishments and goal attainments since the last comprehensive review or date of appointment and a self-assessment
• Any other material deemed relevant by the committee

The Office of the Provost will provide facilitation and assistance for the committee.

The Review Committee will gather key findings through a comprehensive input process. The committee is expected to solicit input from a range of stakeholders that interact directly with the administrator under review, including peers, direct reports, external sources, and other groups that can validly evaluate attainment of administrative goals. This input may take the form of a survey, focus groups, individual conversations, written comments and letters or other such activities. Tools for collecting input must be performance based. The plan for soliciting input must be approved by the Provost or designee.

Review of an academic administrator is a confidential process and the committee is expected to maintain confidentiality in all aspects of its work.

The committee will prepare a report on the performance of the academic administrator based on the information gathered during the process. This report will be provided to the Provost. The Provost will complete a final report and will communicate the results to the administrator orally and in writing and provide any follow-up guidance for continual improvement. The Provost will meet with the direct reports of the administrator to summarize the outcome of the review.