Check the date on Interim Provost Jim Bean’s org chart. His friends are back:
I guess it’s time to ask for more contracts, to see what their pay and perks are this time. These are the people advising Gottfredson? Or are we paying them to do, or not do, something else? Let’s find out. Despite what Randy Geller thinks, that’s what public records requests are for. 8/6/2012.
Fortunately Gottfredson has dealt with the undead before, right?
Looks like 3 special assistants to keep JB’s Beamer washed and waxed….
Where’s Espy? Isn’t there a new Assoc. Dean in CAS? Who else is missing? If this is Bean’s working OrgChart he should update it. (And that will give him an opportunity to fire all the “advisers”)
I heard that Lariviere restructured things so the VPR reports directly to the president. Speaking of which, Espy has been at her post a year now and her name has hardly popped up over here at UOMatters. I assume that’s because nobody has any complaints.
Espy inherited a large debt. The response to this has been to greatly increase the number of administrators and increase the administrative budget. At the same time as she hires people at $100k+ salaries, she has limited the contribution of her office for start-up packages to $50k. The prioritization of funding her administration over supporting research means that only a fraction of science hire requests were allowed, jeopardizing Oregon’s status as a research University.
Espy inherited a large debt, and found that the administration of the individual research institutes was in disarray, the compliance of the university on research regulations ranged from laughable to subpar, and university-level support for research non-existent. She has greatly increased the professionalism of the VPR administration, brought the carefree spending of the research institutes into reality, pushed CAS to finally contribute something to the cost of bringing in new research faculty, and has developed a research model that rationally involves all parts of the university.
Take your pick!
Great comment, thanks.
Dog on Espy
Anon is mostly correct in the choices but I would quibble a bit:
1. CAS finally has money to contribute to this; Espy did not push CAS – in fact it was the other way around. CAS tried to give the VPR office a long term loan for startup but Espy did not want to manage the situation that way. Pros and cons either way – although I do think the arbitrary 50K limit was unnecessarily low and a strategic/political blunder.
2. Agreed that the perception of the Office as being more professional has occurred.
3. She did inherit a very bad compliance situation.
4. It remains to be seen if she will really revise the way institutes do business and really implements a rational research model at the UO.
But so far, this dog has strong complaints and I think the trajectory is now much better than it was under Linton. Indeed, the whole Linton/ORSA debacle is another item that
occurred largely under Bean’s watch …. and indeed the faculty startup funds issue is also, ultimately, in the domain of the provosts office
Dog correction
that is Dog has NO strong complaints about Espy. And just to add words, I hope the community is waking up to the fact of exactly how asleep we were at the wheel around here in terms of IS,VPR,AA,ORSA, over the period 2007-now. There really was unbelievable negligence and yet there is no real accountability for that. No institution should run like that for so long, not even one *objectively* committed to the Truth …