Until THIS issue becomes a primary focus for concern, mid-level administrators will continue fraudulent practices allowing the IHL board and the community (as well as staff and faculty) to place blame everywhere, and, in effect, nurturing current conditions. When faculty insist on procedures, such as those suggested by Mitch and quoted below, that are fully and carefully implemented by chairs and deans, then misuse and abuse will be evident in the upper administration and faculty work can be valued. In the meantime, chaos rules and EVERYONE is at fault. Remedy of this problem is core to the start of recovery.

What is YOUR chair doing this month???? Goals and Objectives? Conferences? Dossiers? This is not happening in many areas!

A more global issue is how poorly many departments here and elsewhere do yearly faculty evals. Here is how it should be done universally

1. Mutually agreed upon goals and objectives that are MEASUREABLE should be formulated at the beginning of the ratings period.

2. Division of effort should be agreed upon too (e.g., 50% research; 30% teaching; 20% service).

3. At the end of the ratings period, the faculty needs only to say if they met or exceeded their goals, and if not, why not. Documentation is provided. Proposed goals for the next year are submitted.