Sent: 2010-05-05
From: President Bill Perry
To: Employees
Subject: President's Report on Third Year Performance Review of Vice President for Student Affairs
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to report to the campus the outcome of my third year review of performance for Dr. Dan Nadler, Vice President for Student Affairs.
Background:
As you may recall, in March of this year I sent an email to the entire faculty and staff, requesting feedback from certain pertinent campus constituencies as part of the third year review process. The wording was, in part:
An integral part of the third year review process is the use of the Administrative Feedback Instrument as provided in IGP 31. Respective constituent groups listed below are asked to submit the Administrative Feedback Instrument. Participation is encouraged, but is voluntary.
Details on confidential submission of completed forms to me follow at the end of this email.
Campus Constituent Respondent Groups.
For Vice President for Student Affairs Dan Nadler:
* Department Heads and Directors in the Division of Student Affairs
* Vice Presidents
* Division of Student Affairs direct reports to Dr. Nadler
Feedback from Campus Email:
Out of the constituent groups listed above, external constituents, and internal academic affairs contacts, altogether comprising approximately 50 individuals, 33 responded. The responses were sent to me and opened by me. The responses were opened in the presence of University General Counsel for counting purposes.
Additional Factors in the Third Year Review:
In addition to the internal evaluations, I used three other sources of
information:
* The aggregate of my annual reviews of the vice president's performance for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010, which consist of an annual letter from the vice president stating agreed upon goals and progress toward previously set goals, followed by a meeting and finally a letter of evaluation.
* The overall progress of student affairs in the university during the vice president's time of service.
* Responses to requests for feedback from external contacts.
Analysis of the Administrative Feedback Instrument:
I tallied the responses to the questions on the Administrative Feedback Instrument. Many respondents wrote comments, as allowed, and I read those. The written responses were, in the main, thoughtful and thorough, and I thank those who provided those responses. I have not shared the individual responses with Vice President Nadler. I have, however, provided him the aggregate analysis that follows in this document.
Overall, the percentages of responses were as follows: Agree or Strongly Agree-83%; Disagree or Strongly Disagree-4%; Neutral-7%; Unable to Judge or No Response-6%. This pattern was generally in evidence across the items.
I also studied the written comments. The two stated categories for written comments were "strengths" and "areas for improvement." The comments may be summarized as follows:
Strengths
* Encourages partnerships, collaboration, and teamwork * Possesses a student-centered approach * Exhibits a positive demeanor, is personable and approachable * Exhibits diplomacy and tact * Is an extremely hard worker * Is accessible * Is fair and honest * Is open to diverse ideas and viewpoints * Is service oriented * Does not micromanage
Areas for improvement
* Carve out more time for meeting with direct reports
Analysis of Additional Factors:
In my annual reviews of performance I have found that Vice President Nadler has provided strong administrative leadership for athletics; supported enhanced safety and security in housing and parking facilities; has advanced the renovations of housing to meet the needs of students; has advanced alcohol education efforts with success; has enhanced community relations; has developed the Office of Student Community Service; has increased the counseling services for our students; has provided strong leadership for emergency exercises; has brought the new textbook rental facility to completion; and has advanced fundraising in student affairs.
In addition, Dr. Nadler is a valued colleague in the Department of Counseling and Student Development.
Prior to my arrival in July 2007, Dr. Nadler set several goals that have come to fruition during the past three years, including enhanced collaboration with Academic Affairs and enhanced first year programs for new students. He has developed strong relationships with Student Government, which continue to the current time.
Conclusion on Performance:
My assessment is that Vice President Nadler's performance is excellent.
The one suggested area of improvement can be managed and Dr. Nadler will work with his scheduling to address it.
Final Comment:
I wish to thank all campus members who participated in the review. You contributed your time and thoughtful responses in the process. Your participation enabled a thorough review.
Bill Perry
President
