Title: Sr. Director, Marketing Communications
Salary Range: $100,000 – 120,000Review Date: Search will remain open until filled. Search committee will begin reviewing applications December 20, 2013
Start Date: As soon as possible
General Responsibilities:The University of Oregon seeks applications for the Senior Director of Marketing Communication position. Reporting to the Associate VP, Communications, Marketing, and Brand Management, the Sr. Director is responsible for leading the University of Oregon’s marketing-communications operations, playing a lead role in the development and execution of organizational structure and practices supporting long-term communications objectives that promote the University of Oregon’s values, vision and key messages in various designed communication channels.
Posted today in the UO jobs listing, here. Another faculty line lost to administrative bloat. There’s also this:
Title: Senior Director of Public Affairs and Communication
Department: University Advancement
Reports To: Associate Vice President, Communications, Marketing and Brand Management
Term: 1.0 FTE for 12 months (renewable annually)
Salary Range: $100,000 to $120,000
Title: Sr. Director, Marketing Communications
Department: University Advancement
Reports To: Assoc. VP, Communications, Marketing, and Brand Management
Term: 1.0 FTE for 12 months (renewable annually)
Salary Range: $100,000 – 120,000
and this:
Title: Associate Vice President (AVP) for Advancement/Executive Director (ED) UO Alumni Association
Department: University Advancement
Reports To: Vice President for University Advancement
Term: 1.0 FTE for 12 months (renewable annually)
Salary Range: $150,000+
Review Date: Search will remain open until filled. Search committee will begin reviewing applications September 17, 2013.
Start Date: As soon as possible
11/21/2013: Gottfredson off on more road trips
Two weeks ago it was Palo Alto for a football game. Last week it was to DC, for a meeting of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, arranged by Kimberly Espy. This week it’s Portland to meet the UO Trustees who were too busy to come visit the campus they will soon be running, then Tucson for another game. Schedule here. Rumor has it that Gottfredson applied for the UA Presidency back in 2012 but didn’t make the final cut, hence his faux pas about the “great University of Arizona” during his campus visit to UO, as sole finalist for the UO President. The UA job went to Ann Weaver Hart, who seems to be doing great.
If the problem is that we don’t recruit good administrators, how is this blog part of the solution?
In all seriousness, please give some suggestions for what you think this blog can do to improve the quality of UO’s central administrators. The Senate passed a resolution last year for a formal review process for them. Gottfredson is sitting on it.
Easy. Eliminate transparency, prevent discussion,and restrict questions. Every good administrator loves to work in the dark without honest feedback from their underlings, knowing that their word is law and that dissenters will be punished harshly. UO will be swamped with applicants from excellent candidates!
Suggestions? Lose the vendettas and personal attacks. Stick to disseminating information. You could achieve your stated goals without tearing people down.
A lot of it is them tearing themselves down, you have to admit.
“Asked and answered”
In all seriousness, you are part of the problem.
In all seriousness, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
If you think that a professor of the institution, standing naked in the forum, provoking dialog and inquiry is part of the problem then what is the solution? More redaction, more unfilled federal forms, more expenditure reports without legal services, more blank calendars, more untraceable funds, more donated building that are fully paid for by state backed bonds? If you believe that this is not rhetoric for inquiry and that UOM is actually slandering his public institution and the foundation he seems to care deeply about as he spend way more time and is more engaged most other faculty and student, then you are the problem.
And if you think people are not afraid of the current administration, please refer to this blog. In a world where people are more than happy to over share with anything I think the only two people not posting anonymous including the critics are UOM and the president of OIT (who also happens to have an open and public calendar).
Short of the new board coming in and invoke the changing of the guard, I do not know what the solution is or how long it will take, I do however know that when the change has come there will be hundreds of faculty, staff, and student fully engaged, over sharing in a plethora of locations, but not on UOM as it will no longer be needed.
I wish I had the guts to do what UOM does. I am the problem as well.
O
Yeah, what we really need around here is new administrators who are completely unaware of the criticisms that rise out of the faculty ranks. Only those uninformed individuals would come here.
Blogs that give a platform to such critiques are just too powerful to be overcome by highly-paid and completely unaccountable admins. Thank you, anonymous, for helping to make that clear.
I agree actually. I like some of the information on this blog. But most of the posts on the admin seem designed only to make them look bad (like it is bad thing to go to DC to advocate for the UO??). My impression is that most administrators work hard and are truly trying to improve the UO. What UO matters could do, is help cultivate a culture where the faculty and staff at the UO work together, take their own initiative to create the programs and innovate to make this place better.
UO matters could be a discussion board where folks have serious discussions on ideas to make the UO better. It could be an efficient conduit between faculty, staff, and administration.
Right now it is mostly negative… and just firing all the administrators is not a solution to make this school better. We need to give them good ideas to act on.
That we arrive at “mostly negative” is mostly driven by the choices of administrators long past, and the current crop not having enough back bone to clean things up. Sure, UOM markets the information to readers. But, we all know that it would not be read without those marketing efforts. Would you be happier if UO released spreadsheets of information? Would you even read them? I think you wouldn’t.
I’m growing very tired of the UOM readers calling UOM out on his blog while not themselves productively contributing to motivating change. Secrecy is not better. Not knowing about the shit that goes on around here is not better. Let’s know it and hire in some administrators with a will to change things. (Coltrane? Any chance you have real change in mind?)
How do you know I’m not contributing to “motivating change”? This blog is the least productive place to do so.
I get it. You are saving all of the good ideas for the other UO blog.
You really believe blogs are the only way to promote motivating change? How sad.
This blog does indeed focus on the questionable decisions of our highly paid (over comparator value, remember?) and completely unaccountable administrators. It is not exactly difficult to determine the affiliations of the anonymous commenters that decry the “tearing down” of some of these administrative insiders.
Do the admins seriously consider points brought up by the faculty?
I think the admin should run their own blog and solicit feedback from us all.
I think the one thing that comes up again and again, is the true transparency would put an end
to UOmatters ability to fill in the blanks with negative assumptions.
So very true. UOM’s market value is driven by the scarcity of real information and dialogue coming from administration. They can put UOM behind them tomorrow if they are interested in doing so. It will (thankfully) take them much longer to put UOM behind them otherwise.
“General Secretary Gottfredson, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the University and the state of Oregon, if you seek liberalization: Practice transparency and shared governance with your faculty! Mr. Gottfredson, clean out Johnson Hall! Mr. Gottfredson, tear down this wall of secrecy and put UO Matters in the ashcan of history!'”
And yet, when the President publishes his schedule, Bill uses it as a way to criticize both MG and the new board. Isn’t the President the external face of the University?
I do not see this as an MG slam or hit piece, as anon above says, so much as marketing. It points out that we now have at least part of a calendar, which UOM had to FOIA the legal curtain and then pay the Geller tax. Now we have at least part of an incomplete calendar. Thank you UOM.
And after that the rhetoric allows us to have a civil discussion about the president and his role. Should it really be JOB ONE to hand wash jock straps? If it is then what is all that admin and overhead over at the foundation for? Should it not be their job one to wipe up? I applaud MG for going out to DC and meeting with the land grant schools, I personally would be intimidated, with their well endowed research facilities, infrastructure of efficient state systems, and dripping with R1 grant potential oozing into their communities.o
Can you provide evidence that UOM is the reason the President’s calendar gets posted?
https://uomatters.com/2013/01/where-is-president-gottfredson.html
http://oregoncommentator.com/2013/05/22/what-will-gottfredson-hide-this-time/
https://uomatters.com/2013/11/gottfredson-now-posting-calendar-lots.html
https://uomatters.com/2013/06/student-frustrations-with-gottfredson.html
I don’t see much wrong the Pres schedule. Little odd that our board can’t make time to actually visit Eugene to discuss the campus, but maybe that’s a reasonable way to use the Portland Campus. Our board should visit campus at least every once in a while, so that they can observe the wonderful state of facilities like PLC.
If he accident called UO the great University of Arizona, that’s on him.
Ratio of Gottfredson’s hours in his $300,000 Autzen skybox or traveling for away games, to his hours in PLC? 100 to1?
Gottfredson’s at the football games because that’s where the wealthy people with an attachment to UO football gather. He’s there to schmooze them into donations. I guess that’s defensible from an academic point of view if the donations mean less siphoning off from academic funds to football. (If.) I hope he’s also hobnobbing with supporters who might be inclined to donate to academic programs, assuming there are any of those. Did the DUK talks produce any support for the academic mission? I applaud Coltrane for getting some kind of Arts & Sciences public event going — it’s a start.
Except, academic donations are crowded out by donations to athletics.
Then he should invite young energetic profs to help him out. Mike’s a great guy and strategically he might be doing a good job, but you gotta have some young, energetic, charasmatic blood to make this the folks want to pull out their pocket books.
We all know an easy way to help with this. Many universities do it. We could to. It is along the lines of the way Johnosons hall takes 1/2 of my grant when I get it. Every donation must have a minimum of 15% that goes straight to the endowment. Do not worry this will still accumulate to your duck points for your tailhooking pass.
A change like that, and pretty soon we wouldn’t need to about the jock box or anything.
People seem not to fully respect how competitive the athletic side is. They will not even share their list of donors with the academic side’s development people, and you want to introduce a tax on their donations? Don’t get me wrong. I would very much support such a tax, at a much higher rate than you propose, but they are so entrenched that we would have much work to do before getting to that point. UOM is moving us in that direction, having already returned more to the academic side than any other single individual or unit on campus. Gottfredson? He’s all talk so far.
It is not a tax. It is a tax deductible donation solely for the benefit of the UO. What would stop our new independent board from reminding the DAF of this? Can the foundation exist if the UO declines to take funds until things change?
For the history of the state the UO Athletic department has been paid for by the citizens of Oregon and the real TAX the students pay in tuition and fees. When all the mega donors are dead and all the upscale condos are built and everyone goes home and Golden Sacks has split with fees and left Oregon with massively over extended on credit and the admins have sucked out their five million in compensation plus their retirement formula based on their Nike ad compensation, they will expect the citizens of Oregon to once again step in to pay and and heap more taxes (tuition) on the dwindling student population to pay for their good timein’ party.
To build the an EMU for all students we just tax future students, while the same students are locked out of the sweat shop, jock box, and athlete only parking just for good measure.
I wonder why enrollment is down and we need yet another branding admin? Perhaps prospective students are a little smarter than they think and the brand needs a little spit shinin. Just do it. o
Has anybody noticed this thread, “Why If I Had Children, They Would Not Attend the University of Oregon,” on the Chronicle of Higher Education bulletin board? http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,144969.0.html
Can you go back to posting funny defamatory accusations? The facts just make me cry for UO.
I have a few suggestions
“UO: the Worst of the Best”
“UO: the Marginal of the Elite”
“UO: Setting the Lower Bar for Elite Higher Education”