Sent: 2012-06-14
From: William Perry, President
To: Employees

Subject: Performance Evaluation - Vice President for Business Affairs

I am writing to report to the campus the outcome of my third year review
of performance for Dr. William Weber, Vice President for Business Affairs.

Background:

As you may recall, in January 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 the review of Vice President for
Business Affairs Dr. William Weber are:

Members of Civil Service Council
Members of Staff Senate
Members of Faculty Senate
Members of Council on University Planning and Budget
Members of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee
Directors and Associate/Assistant Directors in the Division of Business Affairs
Vice Presidents Division of Business Affairs direct reports to Dr. Weber

After transmission of the email I received feedback from the constituent
groups. Out of the constituent groups listed above, 22 individuals
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 2010, 2011, and 2012; the overall progress of
business affairs in the university during the vice president's time of
service; and 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 Weber. I have, however, provided him the
aggregate analysis that follows in this document.

Overall, the percentages of responses to the Administrative Feedback
Instrument were as follows: Agree or Strongly Agree-97%; Disagree or
Strongly Disagree-0%; Neutral-0%; Unable to Judge or No Response-3%. 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:

Knowledgeable
Thorough
Excellent facilitator
Professional
Hardworking
Takes time to meet with people and discuss issues Fair, dependable, and
honest Makes effective presentations Cares about EIU's best interests Is
open to divergent viewpoints

Areas for improvement:

He has good ideas, which he could be more proactive in suggesting

Analysis of additional factors:

In my annual reviews of performance I have found that Vice President Weber
has provided strong administrative leadership for business affairs; has
successfully led strategic planning; has successfully led the campus
master plan update; has overseen reorganization in information technology
services; has advanced the renovations for the Honors College; and has
enhanced budget processes and the budget building process.

Conclusion on Performance:

My assessment is that Vice President Weber's performance is excellent.

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