Selection Procedures

Approved September 19, 2018; voted to revise March 31, 2025.

 

Overview: Section 5.4 of our departmental bylaws outlines the voting procedure for the election of our unit head. This Unit Head Selection Procedures document provides additional detail about the procedures we will use to nominate and select a unit head in the Department of Mathematics. The timeline provided here is a guideline, and the Advisory Committee is charged to provide additional guidance/details of the process, as needed.

Election Procedures. A faculty member must be tenured to run for and serve as unit head. Affiliate faculty members are invited to participate in all aspects of the election process, including voting in the election. Tenure-track and Affiliate votes will be tallied separately as part of the information shared with the Dean. The election results are advisory to the Dean; the Dean ultimately makes the appointment.
 

1. Unit Head Election Committee (UHEC): The Advisory Committee will appoint a 2-member Unit Head Election Committee (UHEC).  Members of the UHEC cannot run for Unit Head (UH).  Members of the Advisory Committee may serve on the UHEC.
2. Nominations: The UHEC will solicit nominations for UH from tenure-track and affiliate members of the department. The nomination period will last at least 7 business days and self-nominations are accepted. The UHEC will contact each nominee to ascertain whether the nomination is accepted. Within 3 business days after the nomination period closes, the UHEC will announce the UH candidates to the department.
3. Candidate statement(s):  Candidates running for UH must prepare a written statement and submit it to the UHEC; candidates should be given a minimum of 4 business days to prepare their statement after UH candidate nominations are announced. The written statement should address the faculty member’s interest, qualifications, and goals for serving as unit head. The UHEC will then distribute all of the UH candidate statements to the department.
4. Questions for candidates: In preparation of a unit discussion meeting where candidates share perspectives and answer questions, tenure-track and affiliate faculty members will be given at least 3 business days to submit questions to the UHEC in writing. The name of a faculty member submitting a question will only be used by the UHEC to confer (if necessary) to ensure a particular question is accurately rephrased or represented. When questions are distributed to the candidates and department, all questions will be posed anonymously.
5. Questions Document:  The UHEC will prepare a document that shares the questions faculty have asked unit head candidates to respond to. The UHEC will organize this in a reasonable way to limit repetition, edit questions as needed for clarity, direct questions to individual candidates, and ensure the full range of questions asked by department faculty is represented. This document will be shared with the candidates and with the department at least 3 business days before the unit discussion meetings.
6. Sharing questions with candidates: The UHEC will also share with the candidates the full list of individual  questions posed by faculty (edited, if needed), with names redacted, so that each candidate has full information in order to address questions at the unit discussion meetings.
7. Unit meetings: A TT faculty meeting at the usual meeting time will be held at least 3 business days after the Questions Document is shared with the department. An AFF faculty meeting at the usual meeting time will also be held on the same time schedule. The purpose of these meetings is for candidates to discuss their perspectives and answer questions. In the case that more than 3 candidates run, the UHEC will schedule multiple meetings; no more than 3 candidates will share a single meeting. In the case that a large number of questions are submitted, it may not be realistic for the candidates to fully address every question in this meeting. Grouping questions and identifying categories or themes in the questions will inform the candidates, so they can formulate responses so as to address as many issues as possible.
8. Structure of unit meetings:
   1. One candidate: In the case of one candidate running, the candidate will have 30 minutes to share a response based on written questions posed prior to the meeting. Follow-up questions may be asked during the meeting. The final 5 minutes of the meeting will be devoted to the candidate sharing final comments/remarks.
   2. Two candidates:  In the case of two candidates running, each of the candidates will have a total of 25 minutes to respond to their set of questions. The UHEC and the candidates will use a random event to determine the order in which the candidates will speak. Each candidate is free to structure their initial 20 minutes; this time can be devoted completely to responding to the written questions or can also accommodate follow-up questions at the meeting. Then, at the end of the meeting, each candidate will have 5 minutes to wrap up and make a closing statement.
   3. Three candidates: In the case of three candidates running, each of the candidates will have 16 minutes to respond to their set of questions. The UHEC and the three candidates will use a random event to determine the order in which the candidates will speak. Each candidate is free to structure their 12 minutes; this time can be devoted completely to responding to the written questions or can also accommodate follow-up questions at the meeting. Then, each candidate will have 4 minutes to wrap up and make a closing statement.
   4. Four or more candidates: The number of unit meetings will be n/3, rounded up, where n is the number of candidates running. The time allotted to each candidate during the meetings will be the same and based on the descriptions above. 
9. Follow-up written responses: In the case that candidates do not have enough time or want to share additional information after the meetings, they will have the opportunity to respond to questions in writing after the unit meetings (1 page limit). Candidates should indicate their intention of submitting a followup written response to the UHEC, and this response must be submitted to the UHEC no later than one business day after the conclusion of the (final) unit meeting. The UHEC will distribute the follow-up written response(s) to departmental faculty.
10. Voting: The unit vote should normally be completed by the last day of final exams in the fall semester.
    1. Period: The voting period will open at least one day after the final unit meeting to allow time for the UHEC to distribute any follow-up written statements prepared by candidates. Tenure-track and Affiliate faculty vote in the election; the TT and AFF vote counts will be tallied separately.  Faculty will have at least 3 business days to vote by secret ballot.
    2. Type: Voting procedures will follow the process specified in the Bylaws (section 5.4). 
    3. Counting: Ballots will be counted by the UHEC; the candidates or their designees are welcome to be present for the counting of ballots.
11. Appointing the Unit Head: The Dean will make the final appointment, after receiving the election results from the department. The Dean has the authority to appoint the Unit Head or to direct the department to follow other processes not covered in the bylaws.

 

Evaluation Procedures

The department’s evaluation of the unit head will occur in the fall semester of their third year in advance of the unit head election and normally follow the CLAS process.

1. By the start of the fourth week of classes, the Dean’s office distributes a survey about the unit head’s performance to the tenure-track and affiliate faculty.
2. The Dean’s office reviews the survey results; the Dean writes a summary report.
3. By the end of October, the Dean meets with the unit head to discuss the unit’s feedback.
4. By the first Monday in November, the Dean shares the summary report with the department.

Faculty also have the option to ask the Dean to meet with the department to discuss the results of the unit’s feedback. 

In addition, if at least 1/3 of tenure-track faculty agree through a formal motion and vote, the Department can choose to replace the CLAS process above with the “Externally Facilitated Unit Head Comprehensive Review/Evaluation Process” (the following approach to unit head evaluation that was used from approximately 2010 to 2020).  Should a subset of the tenure-track faculty wish to pursue this alternate evaluation process, they should make a formal request to the Advisory Committee with a motion to use the alternate process, doing so by no later than the last Friday of February in the second year of the unit head's term, and the tenure-track faculty will vote by secret ballot on the motion by no later the last Friday of classes in that same semester.

ALTERNATE UNIT HEAD EVALUATION PROCEDURE (SUBJECT TO VOTE)

Externally Facilitated Unit Head Review/Evaluation Process
(Prior Unit Head evaluation approach used from 2010-2020 (Approved September 19, 2018, revisions approved March 31, 2025, updating/revising  timelines and AFF participation in the process).

Overview: By the last Friday of classes in the winter semester of the second year of a Department Chair’s term, the Department shall vote to conduct an externally facilitated evaluation of the Department Chair. As part of this process, a faculty member or administrator outside the department will facilitate a department meeting and prepare a final report for the department and Dean. This Externally Facilitated Unit Head Review Evaluation Process section provides additional detail about the procedures we will use to carry out an external evaluation.

1. Role and choice of an evaluator: The Advisory Committee will choose an evaluator from outside the department to facilitate the UH evaluation process. The external evaluator’s role includes: compile and interpret evaluation data gathered via the UH evaluation survey, create a unit meeting agenda based on evaluation survey results, facilitate a unit meeting by mid-October, solicit input from the UH, write a subsequent evaluation report for the Dean and department, meet with the Dean and to discuss findings, and disseminate the final report to the department.
2. Construct an evaluation survey: The Advisory Committee will solicit feedback from the UH about questions the UH would like asked of faculty/staff about the UH’s performance. Using this feedback along with other resources (e.g., an adapted version of the CLAS Faculty Council Unit Head Survey), the Advisory Committee will create a written evaluation survey.
3. Solicit written feedback from departmental members: The Advisory Committee will solicit written feedback from math faculty and staff regarding the UH’s effectiveness in leading the department.  In particular, the Advisory Committee will send out a UH evaluation survey to all tenure track and affiliate faculty and staff. All information collected, except for the UH’s, will remain anonymous to the department through the process. However, the Dean and external evaluator will have access to non-anonymous survey data. 
4. Compile and analyze survey data: The external evaluator will compile the written data from the UH evaluation survey, identify themes, including strengths, concerns, and areas for growth, and draft an agenda for the unit meeting.
5. Construct agenda for departmental meeting: After compiling the written data, the external evaluator will meet with the Advisory Committee (AC). The AC will collectively discuss and provide input/context to the external evaluator for the formation of the agenda that will be used to focus the unit meeting discussions and to ensure that agenda items are inclusive and representative of the written responses from the UH evaluation survey. Pre-meeting survey results (names redacted except the unit head) will be shared with the AC as part of the process for establishing agenda discussion items. 
6. Departmental meetings: The external evaluator will send out the UH evaluation agenda to the department and will facilitate departmental meetings with tenure track and affiliate faculty to discuss themes and solicit additional information. The UH will not be present at these departmental meetings.
7. Post-meeting survey: There will be a post-meeting survey for tenure-track and affiliate faculty; the sole purpose of this survey is to allow people to share additional comments directly related to the meeting agenda and discussion.
8. Meeting with UH: The external evaluator will schedule a meeting with the UH after the departmental meeting and before the writing of the final report to share themes that emerged from the written data and departmental discussion and to elicit the UH’s perspective related to these themes. 
9. Communication with the external evaluator: Except for #8, the external evaluator will not meet or communicate individually with any department faculty or staff member as part of this process; the external evaluator will use only the pre-meeting survey responses, the department meeting discussion, information gathered from meetings with the Advisory Committee and UH, and the post-meeting survey responses to generate the report.
10. Preparing the written report: The external evaluator will draft a final report summarizing the UH’s performance and potential areas of growth and then meet with the Advisory Committee for feedback. In addition to the draft of the report, the external evaluator will share an anonymous version of the post-meeting survey results. After meeting in person with the AC, the external evaluator will finalize and share the report with the Dean, along with the full (non-redacted) pre- and post-meeting survey results. 
11. Sharing final report: The external evaluator will share the final report with the department and the Dean.
12. Debriefing: At the Dean's discretion, the UH, Dean and/or external evaluator will meet to discuss the findings of the evaluation/final report and, as needed, identify ways to address issues and provide needed support for the UH.