President Crawford and Faculty Assembly Colleagues,
I stand in support of the motion to request that the Board of Trustees reinstate the evaluation of administrators committee.
“I never heard a fellow administrator express any concerns about the process. [I]t offers the administrator who is serious about improving their performance feedback they may not otherwise receive…delivered in a safe and systematic manner.”
As a former member of the committee, as a lawyer, and as a former chair and dean who was evaluated on many occasions, and I am at a loss to understand why the Board made this decision. I have heard that the University is concerned about direct dealing, in violation of labor law. This argument is so specious I won’t address it.
If not the Board’s stated reason, then why? After the evaluation of a last provost, the committee heard that some administrators were intimidated by the process. Surely that can’t be; and if true, I suggest the issue is with the administrator, not with the evaluative process.
In my years in administration, I never heard a fellow administrator express any concerns about the process. Why? Because it offers the administrator who is serious about improving their performance feedback they may not otherwise receive. And, that feedback is delivered in a safe and systematic manner. The committee has no supervisory authority; its findings and recommendations can – and have been in the past – ignored by senior administrators.
“[T]he committee heard that some administrators were intimidated by the process.. if true, I suggest the issue is with the administrator, not with the evaluative process.”
As it was instituted, the evaluation process is designed to provide valuable feedback to the administrator, and the University, within bounds that protect against unnecessary conflict and protect respondents and administrators from retaliation and reputational injury. If the Board of Trustees doesn’t reverse its decision, the faculty will have to turn to an external process. The University would not have the benefit of being involved in the design and implementation of such a process, and it would be unbounded by University regulations. I don’t believe this is a better way. A cooperative process, as has been the Miami way for decades, is better for the administrator, the University, and the faculty.
As I understand the status of the committee, it is in suspension. Even if it has been fully abolished, the Board of Trustees is within in authority to reconsider its decision. It is my hope they will reinstate what is a longstanding and productive body.
Leave a Reply