After a dribble in June, JH has gone dark on this. Rumor down at the faculty club is that the survey shows broad dissatisfaction with our senior administrators, who have been arguing about who should get the blame and how to spin the analyses. What’s the truth (to a statistical approximation)? Let’s find out:
On Nov 3, 2022, at 5:17 PM, William Harbaugh <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Public Records Officer –
This is a request for
a) The contract between UO and Gallup for the IDEAL 2022 Climate Survey.
b) Copies of any reports sent by Gallup to UO that include any results or analyses of the IDEAL Campus Climate Survey.
As noted on the survey web page at https://inclusion.uoregon.edu/ideal-climate-survey-2022-faq,
8. What does the UO plan to do with results to the IDEAL Campus Climate Survey?
The results of the IDEAL Campus Climate Survey belong to everyone. [emphasis added] They will be used by campus leaders to understand what we need to do more of and/or differently to live up to our values of inclusion and equity. With support from Gallup, we will:
Determine what the results mean and identify priorities and timelines for addressing them;
Identify campus-level systems, policies and structures, through which interventions will lead to meaningful change,
Put plans to enhance engagement into action.
We will provide results for individual units and also engage a similar process of priority setting that aligns with campus goals, actions and assessments. All results will be shared in a way that maintain and protect confidentiality.
I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest as explained in this statement and many similar statements by the university administration regarding this survey.
I am ccing VP for DEI Yvette Alex-Assensoh, as she should have these documents readily at hand and be able to provide them without your office’s customary fees and delays.
Bill Harbaugh, Professor, UO Economics, [email protected]
I’ll update this post with responses from VP Alex-Assensoh and the PRO as they come in.
Surely with the triumphant farewell of Schill, the successful rollout of shared services, the generous inflation beating raises, the climate is vastly improved. And let’s not forget the positive influence of DEI itself. The trust they show in us at every turn.
Thank you UO matters for pressing this issue as at the time of the survey we were constantly getting emails about participation because this was “important”. I did make some predictions that they the admin would not like the responses. From the results of last June these struck me as important (though I am sure they will be spinned)
1. Among TTF Faculty only 46% replied that they were NOT thinking seriously about leaving the UO. That means about 1/2 of the TTM faculty was thinking seriously (and I include myself among that half). This seems high to me and should be of concern to JH although I would like to see the breakdown by schools and I don’t think this desire is equally shared among the different schools and colleges.
2. The collegiality index rating is lowest for Tenured Faculty – I think I understand that one.
3. The overall notion of negative experiences and confidence in reporting would appear to support the notion that the UO is lip service only; there is no actual accountability here.
Dear U of O Matters —
Re: adm accountability:
Have they been conducting regular performance-reviews of administrators, as they are required to do at the U of O? The failure to do this in a timely manner has been a major issue brought up at the University Senate in the past. In the late 1990s the Senate required the administration to provide a schedule of when top administrators would be evaluated.
I just just realized that I have been dealing with a particular administrator on a regular basis with regards to a program I run, and I have never been asked to participate in an evaluation of him. Is my experience exceptional?
I regularly get asked to complete performance surveys for our SEIU office staff (I don’t think this is typical, but we have a very well-run department) and also occasionally for the OA’s I work with. When I was Senate President, Rob Kyr and Chris Sinclair and I pushed for a policy requiring “360” reviews of upper administrators. This was stonewalled by, you guessed it, the upper administrators. The BoT does occaisionally do performance reviews of the President. Even as Senate President I was never asked to provide input for this – I suppose because Chuck Lillis didn’t give a shit about what faculty thought. The Senate did demand a thorough performance review of former Provost Jim Bean, and he resigned rather than submit to it. This was exactly the outcome we’d hoped for.
Huh, that’s odd, as I was of the impression that Lillis did, indeed, give a shit about what faculty thought – usually right on top of their thoughts…
FYI: when the Adm stonewalled on reviewing their own members, the Senate voted to set up its own review committee, starting w Risa Palm. I envisioned it rather like the Watergate Committee, w public testimony etc. Risa resigned three days later.
And Russ Tomlin left his position after his review revealed that he played favorites: granting TRP to some faculty and not to others…another reason for a union.
Personally I would LOVE to send in some reviews on administrators.
Russ Tomlin RIP. I liked him and he seemed like a good man.
don’t forget the Tomlin Twins – Tomlin and Warpinski – both were
highly INcompetent at a variety of things. Tomlin, in particular, acted completely arbitrarily most of the time. Warpinksi was just mostly confused most of the time. At least Doug Blandy had good intentions and tried to do the right thing, most of the time – he just wasn’t very good at it. I don’t know if its the actual position that creates failure or the people in it …