VII-5.01 - Board of Regents Policy on the Five-Year
                          Review of
                       USM Presidents
     (Approved by the Board of Regents, April 16, 2004)
                              

Definition and Purpose
     The normal expectation is that presidents will
serve for periods of at least five to six years
following their initial appointments.  It is
appropriate, therefore, to conduct an in-depth review
of presidents and the impact of their leadership after
a period of roughly five years of service. This will
enable the Board and the Chancellor to assess
presidential performances over a more extended period
of time than is possible with the ongoing annual
performance reviews. The five-year review is expected
to highlight major accomplishments, offer constructive
suggestions as to areas where improvement in
performance could occur, and provide guidance about
the continuation of a president's service.
     It is also important to conduct in-depth reviews
of presidents who serve extended periods of time in
order to insure that their leadership continues to
move their institutions forward with vitality and
vigor.  Thus, the five-year review cycle should be an
ongoing expectation for every president.  When
possible and practical, these reviews should be
coordinated with the cycle of Middle States and/or
other accrediting body reviews.

Areas for review/assessment
     Presidential performance will be assessed in a
number of areas including:

     1.   Institutional leadership
           - establishing a vision and mission for the institution 
           - developing a strategic plan and direction 
           - aligning the vision, mission, and
              planning with resource allocation;
     2.   Progress toward academic excellence as measured
          by student and  faculty quality and accomplishments; 
     3.   Soundness of fiscal management; 
     4.   Success in non-state resource development,
          including external grants and contracts, and private
          gifts;
     5.   For those campuses with a major research mission,
          success of the research enterprise and its impact on
          economic development;
     6.   Strength of external relations efforts (including
          public relations, marketing efforts, and government
          and private sector relations);
     7.   Ability to develop strategic partnerships with
          other System institutions, higher education
          institutions outside the System, federal laboratories,
          state and local agencies, and the private sector;
     8.   Commitment to serving the public good through
          well articulated state and community outreach and
          engagement efforts;
     9.   Quality of student services (if appropriate);
     10.  Commitment to shared governance;
     11.  Ability to contribute as a constructive and
          collaborative member of the USM leadership; and
     12.  Attention to the development of a high quality
          administrative and managerial infrastructure and an
          attractive, well maintained physical plant.

Process
     The Chancellor shall appoint a review committee
and charge it with evaluating the President's overall
performance in the areas mentioned above. The
committee will consist of no more than five members,
who will be knowledgeable and experienced leaders,
such as presidents of institutions with missions
similar to that of the president under review. The
President may suggest suitable members for the
committee and will be asked to review the proposed
committee; however, the final selection will be made
by the Chancellor.
     The deliberations and recommendations of the
committee are strictly confidential and will proceed
according to the following schedule:

     1.   A president under review completes a self-
          assessment, which includes the major accomplishments
          and the challenges faced during the period under
          review.
     2.   The self-assessment is shared with the committee
          members several weeks in advance of their site visit.
     3.   Before making a site visit, the committee members
          review the self-assessment and other key institutional
          documents, such as Middle States review documents,
          recent accreditation reports, strategic plans, as well
          as representative information shared with alumni,
          donors, and other external groups.
     4.   At the beginning of the site visit, the committee
          meets with the Chancellor to receive its formal charge
          and then with the Vice Chancellors.  The Committee
          visits the campus and meets with the institution's
          vice presidents, and the officers of constituent
          groups such as faculty, staff and student governance
          bodies, alumni, and affiliated foundation boards (this
          will differ from institution to institution). These
          meetings are expected to be strictly confidential and
          will take place in a conference room setting. The
          campus visit should be completed in a concentrated
          time frame of no more than three days.
     5.   The committee has an exit interview with the
          Chancellor.
     6.   The Committee prepares and submits its formal
          report within two weeks of the exit interview.
     7.   The Chancellor shares the report with the
          President, who is invited to respond in writing.
     8.   The Chancellor makes the review committee report
          and the President's response available to the
          Committee on Organization & Compensation, discusses
          the report with the Committee and then with the entire
          Board of Regents.  The report remains confidential and
          becomes part of the president's personnel file.
     9.   The Chancellor meets with the President to
          discuss the review committee's reports, the Board's
          reaction to it, and the steps that need to be taken in
          response to the report.

                    VII-5.01 - 3