Gottfredson to claim administrator reviews were his idea all along

11/27/2012: That’s the word from a conversation today between Dave Hubin and a UO Matters correspondent. Apparently the official JH position is going to be that Gottfredson’s decision to implement reviews has nothing to do with the two motions that passed the UO Senate unanimously on Nov 7. Whatever dude, just do it.

Interim Provost Bean said at that Senate meeting that he had checked that very morning and found that all but one of UO’s senior administrators had been reviewed annually, and had had a major review within the past 4 years – or something along those lines, I don’t have the stomach to watch the video.

But Bean still has not responded to requests to see a copy of the purported timetable of reviews. He promised to put these on the web last year, and the public records request is now more than 6 weeks old. As part of the Senate motion, President Kyr has also asked for this timetable. Nothing. The last email I got from Bean on this subject?

From: James Bean
Subject: Re: FAC, evaluations of senior administrators
Date: August 29, 2012 8:50:17 AM PDT
To: X
cc: Y, Z
Each year we determine who is due, and our capacity to do them, then choose. We have not settled on those for this year but will do so in the next month. Jim

He simply ignored the part of the question asking for the dates of prior reviews.

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Gottfredson to claim administrator reviews were his idea all along

  1. Publius says:

    Bean says that senior adm have been reviewed every four years. I was a CAS faculty member for over thirty years. Hence, I should have been invited to provide input at least seven times in evaluations of CAS deans, if these reviews were thorough. In fact, I was never ONCE asked my opinion about a dean’s performance, or anyone else – except Myles Brand, who asked to be reviewed by the faculty when he was president.

    • UO Matters says:

      I have been at UO 17 years, full professor for 5. I have been asked to provide input for the review of just one administrator, during Larry Singell’s review Russ Tomlin.

      Anyone else ever been asked?

    • Anonymous says:

      actually,yes–vice provost,provost,cas dean and associate dean,and a chancellor,but only one recently, which is the issue. Overstatement does not help our credibility as a faculty. Instead, it offers up just another excuse for ignoring us.

    • Anonymous says:

      Only once since Bean took over? Was that Larry’s review of Tomlin?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes,you’re right. tis a pity. More regular reviews might be more ‘formative’ rather than just punitive, when things have gotten so bad everyone has lost.

    • Publius says:

      The official position, stated by L Davis when the issue of adm review came up in the 1990s, was that adm reviews would solicit input from “selected” faculty. No doubt Anonymous 28 Nov was one of those asked to comment on the CAS dean. I dont know what the remark about ‘overstatement’ is meant to imply. I never selected the students asked to comment on my teaching. I never selected the referees asked to comment on my promotion. As noted, Myles Brand, when president, asked anyone who wanted to comment on his performance. Why should other adm be any different?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Our state’s flagship institution is run by people with the emotional intelligence of 4-year-olds.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Don’t think of it as plagiarism, think of it as flattery.