11/1/2012: Former UO Senate President Nathan Tublitz has sent me a copy of this motion which he intends to introduce in the Senate in November, for debate in January:
MOTION TITLE: Performance Review of Provost James C Bean
Sponsor: N. Tublitz, Professor of Biology
MOTION: The Senate requests President Gottfredson to immediately initiate a comprehensive performance evaluation of Provost James C Bean, the chief academic officer at the University of Oregon. The review of the Provost shall focus on decisions, policies and leadership issues impacting academics and shall contain substantial input from faculty, staff and students. The review shall be completed no later than 31 March 2013 and an extensive executive summary of the review shall be presented by President Gottfredson to the Senate at the April 2013 Senate meeting.
BACKGROUND: Provost Bean was selected as interim Provost in 2008 by then President Frohnmayer and permanently appointed to the position by then President Lariviere in 2009. In each instance the appointment occurred in the absence of a national search, contrary to the standard hiring practice for this position at the University of Oregon and other research universities. To date Provost Bean has not been the subject of a formal performance review unlike faculty and staff who are reviewed much more frequently. Given that the Provost is the highest ranking and the most influential academic position on campus, this motion requests an immediate performance evaluation of the Provost focusing solely on academic issues. It is important to note that this is not a personnel review; it is a performance evaluation on issues impacting academics at the University of Oregon.
A fairly comprehensive collection of material for Bean’s performance review is here. The cocktail party version? His colleagues have spoken: after the Lariviere firing neither the UO faculty heads, the Faculty Advisory Committee, nor the Senate Executive Committee would support OUS Chancellor Pernsteiner in his efforts to appoint Bean as interim president.
Oh, great! This will almost guarantee that they don’t do a review…
Seems like a no-brainer, why would this be controversial? Presumably Gottfredson will do this as a matter of course in the next few months anyway.
Vote of no confidence?
Yes. In the Senate, if they can’t do something as basic as insist on faculty input into a long overdue evaluation of our “Chief Academic Officer”.
Last year, on Berdahl’s instructions, Dave Hubin burnt through all kinds of credibility and goodwill stopping Senate efforts to add a member to the IAC and address public records problems. I wonder what instructions he’ll get from Gottfredson this motion?
UoM apparently saw Hubin’s action from the point of view of some IAC member. The Senate saw it from the point of view of Senate members and, obviously, felt the issue was not important enough to take to the Assembly. Some of the issues coming down the pike may be treated differently.
Do administrators like Bean have to go through the regular faculty 3 year review process in order to keep their status as professors? They do in the UC system.
At UO, it’s all based on your ass-kissing skills. Maybe there’s a rule, but since there’s not even a faculty handbook, who would know?
Why no motion for a faculty handbook?
The Provost gave up on the Faculty Handbook some years ago. It ws too expensive? too much work? to keep it up to date, so Faculty are referred to the website of Academic Affairs for info re Faculty rights and duties. Presumably a webpage is less expensive to keep up to date. However, it is not less work, as is obvious from a very peremptory glance at what’s there. For instance, this Old Man wondered whether his rights as an Emeritus Prof were correctly described, so he clicked on the relevant button. Here’s what he found:
“Emeritus Status confers the following rights and privileges:
Voting rights in faculty governance
Working space and support
Research and travel support
Library and recreational facilities privileges”
Yes, I can use the Library, and I can use rec facilities for a price. However, the Provost must be kidding about “Working space and support” and “Research and travel support”, and Emeritus Faculty has not had voting rights since 1996. (Oh, in 2003, DF declared them to be Assembly Members for the meeting called by petition. Perhaps he figured that would make it harder for the Assembly to meet the quorum requirement that he dreamed up just for that meeting.)
In brief, the web site is as useless as the handbook had become before it was abandoned. You want to know your rights and duties? Get a competent provost.
dog to old man
surely you have been here long enough to know that post 1990
“competent provost” is an oxymoron at the UO.
This is like Thomas Jefferson requesting a performance review of King George, just to keep in line with best practices in other monarchies. If Tublitz and others have a beef with the provost, let them enumerate their grievances and defend their case.
I believe Nathan is trying to be politic, by calling for this long overdue review before a vote of no confidence. Most people are hoping that Bean will move on to another university (no sign of that, alas) or announce his retirement soon (plenty of rumors on that) and thereby save UO the nastiness of a full enumeration and investigation of grievances. If want to be 18th century about it, think of his motion as a shot across the bow.
Can I motion for a review of Tublitz’s performance as a Biology professor?
Don’t all faculty get a teaching/research/service review every 3 years and a post-tenure review every 6? Or is that just my department?
PTR is a joke – if Bean’s review is similar he’ll pass with flying colors.
Word from the JH washrooms is that Gottfredson and Bean are not getting along at all.