Trustee Sandra Anderson, chair of an ad-hoc committee that examined the evaluation process, presented the proposed policy and reports of meetings and methods the committee used in drafting the policy.

"The work was generic and general, and by that I mean we had no particular president in mind," she said. "We wanted a nameless, faceless president in order to arrive at fair, objective and workable processes."

Anderson said the committee approached its task from a research perspective, gathering as much information as possible to help form its decisions. The committee solicited written input from the leaders of the university's five constituent senates, consulted Robert Woodbury of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) and reviewed the presidential evaluation policies of other Ohio public universities as well as the university's 10 institutional peers.

How Ohio University compares

"We kept steadfastly in mind all of the stakeholders of the university," Anderson said. "Students, faculty, alumni, administrators, staff and donors -- to solicit input from all the stakeholders at the right time and in the right way."

She said the committee focused largely on the university's peer institutions to learn from their successes and avoid their mistakes, and found some notable differences in how Ohio University and others approach presidential evaluations.

"At all of our peer universities, and I stress all, the campus community is not solicited for input," she said. "We are the only one proposing that the stakeholders be solicited for input."

According to Anderson's report, the peer universities' boards of trustees perform an annual performance review of the president, but that information is not shared with the university community. Typically, stakeholders are apprised of the comprehensive review, which is performed every five years, the evaluation is shared with the president during executive session, and the board chair may or may not present the information during a public meeting.

"Which university provides the best opportunity for input on evaluation of the president? Ohio University," Anderson said. "Which university is the most open and shares information about the evaluation of the president with its constituents? Ohio University."

The Review Process

The current policy, adopted in 1979, specifies that the president and other "major administrative officers" will receive a performance review annually and a comprehensive review every five years, but it does not offer detailed procedures.

The proposed policy states the purposes of the annual presidential review are:

• To enable the president to strengthen performance in meeting goals and Ohio University's mission;
  
  
• To promote good communication and strong relationships between the president, the board, constituencies and other stakeholders in support of the mission;
  
  
• To enable the president and board to set, reset and evaluate mutually agreed-upon goals and objectives;
  
  
• To inform decisions on compensation adjustments and other employment terms.

The purposes of the five-year comprehensive reviews are:

• To solicit informed perceptions of major internal and external stakeholder leaders and the president and board;
  
  
• To involve one or more external advisers in the review process;
  
  
• To enable the president and board to decide whether there is a basis for extended commitment to one another;
  
  
• To promote the success, progress and best interests of the university and its mission.

Annual review process

The policy states that the president initiates the annual review process with a written self-assessment statement, which should remain confidential, and includes a review of previously agreed-upon goals and achievements, disappointments, issues or problems. The assessment must also include a statement of challenges and opportunities the university faces and the president's proposed goals and objectives for the coming year.

The president and executive committee must establish an agreed-upon format and timetable for the assessment. The policy sets the timetable to commence by March 1 of each year.

According to the policy, the board and president will meet in executive session to discuss the review so that discussions can be candid and wide-ranging. The president's proposed goals for the coming year also will be discussed, and the board may propose adjustments during this meeting. Once all are in agreement, the board will approve the goals.

Comprehensive review process

The president is responsible for providing a written self-assessment statement to the chair, similar to the annual review process, detailing the years under review. As the statement will address sensitive personnel matters, all discussion will be held during executive session and remain confidential.

Additionally, the policy states that the review process must be completed within three months after advisers have been included. Review activities should include private, personal and small-group interviews with the president, board and various internal and external individuals and groups.

Of these, the policy recommends interviewing elected leaders of campus constituent groups; select faculty, students, staff, alumni, community leaders, government officials and donors; The Ohio University Foundation board; and other stakeholders. The committee, president and external advisers will determine the nature of interview questions in advance, and all interviews will be held confidential.

Communication with constituents

Anderson said the committee, in crafting the policy, felt communication was an important element, stressing that the annual and comprehensive reviews are "in addition to regular and ongoing communication that should and is expected to take place between the president, the board, university constituencies and other stakeholders in support of the Ohio University's mission."

Student Trustee Tracy Kelly, who served with Anderson on the ad-hoc committee, voiced concern about language within the policy, saying it does not meet a stated purpose of the annual review -- to promote good communication and strong relationships between the president, board, constituencies and other stakeholders.

"I think there is a serious disconnect between the purposes of the annual review and what we actually see," Kelly said. "I feel that it is ambiguous and does not reaffirm that point in any meaningful way."

Implementation

While the committee brought forth its recommendation for the policy change, Anderson stressed that members did not make a decision on how and when the policy should be implemented.

"Our goal we set out with was to identify and incorporate the best practices for a universal presidential evaluation process," she said. "And we have met that goal."

Board Chair Daniel DeLawder said the executive committee and full board will take responsibility for determining when the policy will be implemented.

President Roderick J. McDavis said he appreciated the committee's extensive research and was pleased with the board's decision to accept the policy.