The Faculty Senate presidential review committee has developed and distributed a survey to faculty members to review the performance of Iowa State President Martin Jischke and the operation of his office.

“This is the first time we have carried out a presidential review at Iowa State,” said Richard Seagrave, Faculty Senate presidential review committee chair.

He said although they started to review former president George Eaton in 1990, he announced he would be moving to Columbia University before the review was completed.

The only precedence for this review at Iowa State was a report to the Faculty Senate outlining guidelines as to what the committee would have done if they had proceeded with a review of Eaton.

Seagrave said they started with those guidelines in this review, which basically states they would limit the review primarily to input from faculty, although they might seek opinions of other groups on a few key issues.

They have done this, he said, by sending a letter to the executive boards of the Government of the Student Body, the Graduate Student Senate and the Professional and Scientific Council asking them “to respond to a few specific questions about the president’s office as it affects the environment for teaching and learning.”

He said they may also send letters to other groups, but they have not yet determined which ones.

The review committee has sent a survey to every isu adjunct or tenure track faculty member.

Seagrave said they used a combination of tools to develop it, including referring to other universities that do it.

The survey was tested on a small group of faculty members first, “mostly to make sure we had the mechanics right and make sure the thing was comprehensible,” Seagrave said.

The committee decided to survey everyone “to give everybody the same chance to participate,” he said. “We didn’t want anyone to feel left out — the spirit of inclusiveness.”

Surveys are due by April 15.

Lawrence Evans, professor of veterinary medicine, said he hasn’t had an opportunity yet to look at the survey. He said he thinks reviews are good because they give people an opportunity to look at how others perceive them to be. However, he said he doesn’t think this should necessarily be done in a “workers evaluating their boss” format.

Tom Fenton, professor of agronomy, said his evaluation of the president was in some respects critical, especially of how he handled things such as the sale of WOI and the Leonard Goldman sexual harassment issue.

“In terms of his ability to be a fund-raiser I think he’s done a very good job,” he said. “My only question is, is that what the university is all about?”

He said part of his evaluation was an overall impression from a public standpoint of Iowa State because he doesn’t have enough knowledge of why certain decisions were made to make a rational decision about them.

Seagrave said they also have issued a call to the community or anyone else who wants to, to write to the committee about anything they want to say. Such letters should be sent to the Faculty Senate office, 103 Lab of Mechanics, in care of the presidential review committee or of Seagrave.

This is basically the same review process used for vice presidents and deans, he said, “but this is the first time it’s been used for the president.”

He said the review committee is “just hoping to increase communication and improve the environment for teaching and learning. … We’re doing it in the spirit of what engineers call continuous improvement; we’re hoping to learn some things that the president can use in carrying out his job,” he said.

Results from the survey and the letters will be compiled in two reports.

Seagrave said there will be a confidential report on the president himself given to the president, the Faculty Senate Executive Board and the Board of Regents.

There will also be a public report, he said, evaluating the operation of the president’s office.