9/23/2012. Here’s an outline, suggestions welcome. Note that there are now two separate motions. Also see the comments and the discussion at http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen/1_15_97mins.html for a previous Senate effort at this.
1) A motion to ensure faculty and Senate input into the hiring of executive administrators:
The UO Senate requests that the UO administration work with the Senate and the FAC to develop procedures to ensure faculty input into the hiring of executive administrators, including the Provost, Vice Provosts and Vice Presidents, Deans, General Counsel, members of the “Executive Leadership Team” and others with direct reports to the President or Provost. Procedures should be designed for regular searches, interim appointments, and “special assistant to the provost” TRP type appointments.
2) A motion to ensure faculty and Senate input into performance reviews of executive administrators
a) Ensure that a regular schedule of three year major “360” performance reviews of executive administrators is publicly posted and followed. These reviews will include procedures to collect and incorporate input from faculty, OAs, staff, and students and other interested parties where appropriate.
b) Develop a plan to schedule “catchup” performance reviews for those administrators who have not had such major reviews within the past three years, with these catchup reviews to be complete by June 1, 2013. (Might have to stagger these, apparently there will be a lot of catchup!)
c) Make summary reports to the Senate on the outcome of these reviews, to the extent allowed by Oregon’s public records law exemptions.
Michigan State’s policy on searches is available here, UO’s policy on reviews is here, but it is vague and is more honored in the breach than the observance. I remember sitting down with Lariviere 2 years ago and asking when he was going to give the faculty a chance to participate in an evaluation of Bean. I sat on the FAC for the past two years, and from what I know faculty input has only been formally incorporated in the recent reviews of Don Harris and Russ Tomlin.
Congrats to the senate for doing this. This issue was raised by several of us in the senate in the mid-1990s. The immediate occasion was the desire to get rid of Dean Risa Palm, who we knew would never survive an review of her performance. The administration promised to begin regular reviews, starting with Palm. She immediately resigned, rather than submit to a review; the administration never followed through on its commitment to regular reviews. If there is a commitment to regular reviews, there should be a mechanism to ensure they actually happen.
Thanks Cheyney, you don’t happen to have a copy of that motion, if it went that far?
The senate dealt with this over a three month period, Dec 96-Feb 97. The minutes, linked below, show that the administration gave different, contradictory accounts of its practices. (Provost John Mosely initially said that reviews were done every six years, even though deans were appointed for five year terms.) There were several motions made and approved during these discussions, as the minutes indicate.
Two main points:
1. In response to a query from Ann Tedards, Vice Provost Davis stated that reviews would be held every two years. She admitted sloppiness in the past, but promised that this would be rectified.
2. In the final discussion, the late Wayne Westling moved that the administration officially report to the senate, clarifying its procedures. My own notes indicate Wayne also asked that the administration reconfirm Davis’s commitment. This motion was passed unanimously, as the minutes indicate.
The administration never replied.
Here are the links:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen/11_13_minutes.html
http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen/12_4_minutes.html
http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen/1_15_97mins.html
Every staff policy the UO has is deliberately vague. This allows for discretion. UO is living with the realities of discretion.
deliberately vague. YES! deliberately interim. OF COURSE!
You can do a whole lot more deceitful acts for your self enrichment when you “force” yourself to work with vague and interim directives and policies. When caught your yell IT’S INTERIM! right….we get it.
Just look at how many people hold interim positions FOR YEARS! in some cases. And all the administrative “promotions” and interim hiring approved under an interim policy that Penny is “forced” to use…..(wink*wink*) [The NIRPR became an interim policy when the administration was asked to provide the IMD number and show the approval for it…. and the administration couldn’t cause an APPROVAL NEVER HAPPENED!]
Discretion my ass…it allows for blatant violations, lies, deceit, greed and elitist acts of nastiness…which is what we have here…just gotta love our administration! NOT!