Evaluations have been completed for five MUSC academic officers who have served for at least five years.

Comments about these administrators were solicited from employees and faculty last May. Their strengths and areas for improvement have been identified; they’ve been reviewed by vice president for academic affairs and provost Dr. Ray Greenberg; and reports have been forwarded to MUSC president Dr. James B. Edwards.

A policy proposed by the university administration and approved by the MUSC Board of Trustees this year calls for the evaluation of the university’s senior administrative officials “to provide constructive advice about the skills and effectiveness of those administrators.”

Subject to the current round of evaluations were: Layton McCurdy, M.D., vice president for medical affairs and dean of the College of Medicine; Rosalie Crouch, Ph.D., associate provost for research and dean of the College of Graduate Studies; John Johnson, Ph.D., dean of the College of Health Professions; Tom Basler, Ph.D., director of the Library; and Jim Menzel, director of the Department of Enrollment Services.

“Having to compile five years’ worth of documentation was a serious challenge!” Menzel said. “The committee wanted to see just about everything I had done at MUSC and how I had done it. The body of work that I assembled was, in retrospect, as informative to me as it must have been to the committee. This was a truly reflective process.”

Basler used the words “proper” and “terrifying” to describe his initial thoughts of a formal, high-profile, university-wide evaluation. “The care taken by the chair of the evaluation committee and fellow faculty allowed that terror to downgrade to more localized trepidation as the process progressed.” He added that the evaluation process “needs to be continued, and will be of value to all.”

McCurdy calls the review of his performance as dean “unprecedented,” but “a very positive step.” Adding that the process was “thorough and fair,” he said that he learned from both the process and the evaluation itself. “The evaluation will guide my activities as I continue to carry out my duties,” he said.

Calling the evaluation process “broad and all encompassing,” Glen Askins, M.D., medical director and professor of rehabilitative sciences, who chaired the committee evaluating McCurdy, said the committee’s conclusions were based on numerous letters, e-mails and interviews with key faculty, administrators, staff, students, and alumni. Questionaires were sent to 325 (one-half) of the College of Medicine faculty and more than 100 responded.

Askins said that among the major areas addressed for strengths, weaknesses and trends were college organization and structure, personnel, research, graduate and postgraduate education, provision of clinical services, and the college’s strategic plan.

“It was the committee’s opinion that the evaluation was not only constructive but that the opportunity for input from peers made it particularly valuable,” he said. “It was very illuminating that faculty and students share my concern as to the structure of research administration within the university,” Crouch said. “I think the comments made in the evaluation will help guide us in reviewing the overall administrative structure.”

Johnson agreed that the evaluation process was a good one. It allowed the faculty, staff, and students an opportunity to participate, he said. “The results provide both a confirmation of our major achievements and identify areas where we can do better.”

College of Nursing associate professor Suzanne Doscher, who chaired the committee evaluating Johnson, said she found the experience gratifying. She appreciated the opportunity to work with colleagues from other colleges who served as dedicated members of the committee, she said.

“Throughout the process, we recognized our responsibility to conduct a thorough, confidential and rigorous review, a review that would offer benefit to the dean, his constituents and the university as a whole. Without the input provided by constituents of the dean,” Doscher said, “we would not have been able to deliver a thorough and balanced final report. When opportunities such as this present, I encourage all constituents, especially faculty, to view participation in the process as a responsibility and expectation.”

Greenberg expressed his gratitude for the serious and diligent work performed by members of the five committees. “The recommendations they made from the information they collected are already being implemented. I fully expect that our academic leaders will achieve a higher level of performance because of it.”

The policy invites confidential letters of evaluation from individuals served by the administrators and from representatives of other groups. Greenberg said that it will be another year before any other academic administrators will have crossed the five-year threshold and be eligible for an evaluation.

Other non-academic administrators across campus will be evaluated during the coming year, however.