MEMORANDUM

As discussed in previous meetings, a need for an evaluation process for the Major Administrators' existed. Your approval of its development and the work of faculty, staff, and some major administrators brought forth a tool to collect the college community's responses to the various topics of the evaluation.

This data was given in the Spring Semester of 1998. While these are personnel documents, the summary of the evaluations and your reaction to them are solicited. Additionally, are there "plans for improvement" indicated in the areas that are considered weak? In industry, evaluation of employees creates a document that not only shows how one is doing, but delivers information to the employee regarding the improving of his/her performance. These "plans" are posted with a date of completion and the follow-up re-evaluation and, if necessary, the consequences of non-completion of the required performance levels.

As the evaluation system of faculty determines the dispersement of merit money, retention in non-tenure track positions and the promotion and/or granting of tenure in the tenure track positions, what recourse will you exercise regarding the results of the Major Administrators' evaluations?

In summary, we, the faculty, asked for and received the evaluation tools to respond to the appropriate Major Administrators. We intended for this evaluation process to be one of action and reaction, not merely another collection vehicle. Will you respond to the college community with the results of the evaluations and your reactions? All around us we find "accountability" as the issue, from our numbers of enrollment, graduates, assessment, and faculty and staff performance. You indicated that this Major Administrator structure would be accountable to you and that we would have the opportunity to give input. How and when are you measuring?