DATE: June 21, 2002
TO: Board of Regents
FROM: Chairman Roehm
RE: Endorsement of Charge to the Committee to Review Board of Regents Procedures for Assessment, Evaluation, and Compensation of the Commissioner and Presidents.
The Board of Regents recently completed an assessment process. While the actions are still fresh in our memory, we ought to review the process and identify areas for improvement. There also has been considerable Board discussion as to the potential uses and sources of compensation, and what use would be in the best interest of the University System. This Committee would look at these potential uses as well as the relation of compensation to evaluation, and suggest policy options to the board.
Note. Establishment of this special committee is to carry out the specified purpose stated in the “Charge to the Committee.” After completion of this task, the committee will automatically cease to exist.
Persons appointed: Regent Thompson (Committee Chair), Regent Jasmin, Regent Semmens
Charge to the Committee:
Provide a report to the Board on or before the
November 2002January 16-17, 2003, regular meeting on the following:
· Review the process used during the 2002 Commissioner/Presidential assessment and recommend changes to board policy or procedures (if necessary).
· Evaluate the effectiveness of the Commissioner/Presidential assessment process as it relates to those parts of the cycle that include board self-assessment and comprehensive assessment of the performance of the board and senior Administrators as a whole, and recommend changes to policy (if necessary).
· As deemed appropriate by the Committee Chair, provide opportunity for participation and input by other board members, the Commissioner, and Presidents, and provide for confidentiality in areas of personnel matters that discuss sensitive information.
· Committee recommendations for board policy should work toward forming a clear review process, an established timetable, and annual statements of goals and accomplishments from those being reviewed and assessed.
· The overall objective of the review process should enhance the Commissioner’s /President’s performances, improve communication between the board and those being reviewed, and assess whether the mutual relationship between board and administrators adequately supports implementation of the mission.
· Consider the present Commissioner/Presidential compensation procedure, its relation to the assessment process, possible inclusion of incentive measures, and recommend changes, as appropriate.
· Suggest methods to determine that the compensation level and perquisites of our three chief executives are appropriate to the position, adequate in the eyes of the incumbent, comparable and competitive with compensation at similar institutions, and recommend a level with which our board may be comfortable.
· Evaluate the compensation system structure, compensation levels, retirement plans, and benefits relative to other comparable institutions in neighboring states and in consideration of relative income levels and resource constraints in Montana.
· Evaluate the relative compensation levels among our system and campus CEOs in view of their respective responsibilities.
· Identify alternative compensation system components (including deferred compensation and retirement plans) that could be used to reward superior performance and encourage retention of targeted senior staff members.