In developing procedures for evaluating academic administrators which both meet legal requirements and foster professional development, institutions should provide for the participation of faculty and other employees directly affected by the administrator's position; develop clear and complete job descriptions for each administrative position; conduct evaluations in a timely manner at regular and reasonable intervals; and clearly explain the purposes of the evaluation. Job performance standards should be established at least 1 year in advance of the evaluation process and should be clearly communicated to those being evaluated. Job performance goals and objectives should be established which assess the administrator in such areas as knowledge of the position, planning and management in the context of shared governance, communication skills, promoting affirmative action and cultural diversity, and implementing legal mandates. Two types of procedures for the evaluation of administrators include: the annual and the comprehensive. The annual evaluation procedure includes the following steps: (1) conducting the evaluation; (2) concluding the evaluation; and (3) providing the follow-up. The comprehensive evaluation procedure includes the following steps: (1) establish an evaluation team of six to eight members who will meet at least three times during the evaluation period; (2) train the evaluation team; (3) conduct the evaluation, which includes obtaining information through administrator self-evaluation, supervisor evaluation, and faculty/staff/other involvement; (4) conclude the evaluation process, which consists of establishing performance ratings and improvement recommendations; and (5) provide for follow-up, which includes the evaluatee meeting with a supervisor to develop training and development activities addressing the needs identified. An appendix reviews California legislative provisions affecting administrator evaluation. (PAA)