The Department Head is responsible for requesting and accumulating outside letters of evaluation, for identifying the relationship of all referees to the candidate, and for ensuring that the file of written evaluations and recommendations from within and without the university presents a fair picture of the candidate under consideration.  The Department head also submits a report to the file. This report consists of two parts: (1) an administrative summary of the department's position on the case, and (2) the Head's personal evaluation of the case.

Administrative Summary
The Department Head, or department committee, if applicable, should provide a brief explanation of the department's review process and any special activities involved with the review.  This summary should clarify any special conditions of the appointment, or special duties and obligations the performance of which is to be particularly evaluated. It should include an explanation of who in the department is eligible to vote on the particular candidate.  It is important to include a summary of the faculty discussion preceding the official vote.  Votes at the department level on tenure cases must be secret with only the tally being revealed to the faculty,  and recorded on the VOTING SUMMARY.  The Department Head shall provide an explanation for any abstentions and/or reasons why some faculty may not have participated in the review and voting process (e.g., spouse, sabbatical leave, etc.). 

Department Head's Evaluation
The Department Head should include his or her personal evaluation and recommendation including analyses of (a) teaching; (b) research and scholarship, and other professional activities; and (c) service.   This review should be independent from that of the departmental committee, and the recommendation from the head need not coincide with either the committee or the vote of the eligible members of the department.  Department Heads should honestly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate.  Analysis is more important than advocacy, and it is often counterproductive to make excuses for a candidate' s weaknesses.  What is important for review committees outside the department is to obtain a balanced view of the candidate.   This is especially important in evaluating teaching. 

The Department Head's report should  avoid duplicating material presented by the departmental committee, especially quotes from external letters. Occasionally, among the 6-7 outside reviewers, conflicting opinions about the quality of the candidate's scholarship may emerge.  It is the responsibility of the Department Head to independently analyze any such discrepancies in the external letters and to indicate the reasoning that led to his or her own conclusions as to the merits of the case.

In cases where a substantial portion of the candidate's scholarship has roots in a dissertation, the Department Head should discuss the relationship of the published work with the dissertation.  It is especially helpful to know the degree to which new research has been incorporated with previous work.

The report from the Department Head must be signed.