The Ohio University chapter of the American Association of University Professors will proceed with evaluations of three top-ranking OU administrators but without university resources or administrative recognition.
The association originally called for an evaluation of the president and provost, a referendum that 80 percent of 477 voting faculty approved. After the Board of Trustees blocked OU Provost Kathy Krendl from approving the evaluation, the AAUP said at Faculty Senate's May 15 meeting it would continue with an evaluation and include OU's vice president for regional higher education.
We see the assessment as something that 80 percent of the participating faculty wanted
said John Gilliom, the association's executive committee member. One legal memo is not going to shut us down on this.
In an e-mail to Kevin Mattson, president of the association's OU chapter, Legal Affairs Director John Burns said he has legally authorized the administration to deny the AAUP any right to utilize university resources to circulate or otherwise distribute and return the evaluation document or materials.
The association will not be allowed to use the campus mailing or labeling systems, Burns said.
The legal basis for the denial would be the university controls its own communication system he said. We do have restrictions and we can establish restrictions.
The evaluation process will continue, though, with a completion date set for the end of Spring Quarter, Gilliom said.
We were really shocked
he said. Campus mail is a widely used medium
and they don't go snooping through envelopes
and they don't go asking you what you're sending. All of a sudden
they're saying 'no
they can't do that.'
In addition to not allowing the AAUP to use university resources, OU administrators will not recognize, endorse, validate or accept the evaluations, according to Burns' letter.
Part of not recognizing the evaluations is that the Board of Trustees is responsible for evaluating the president, and the president is responsible for evaluating the provost and vice presidents, Burns said. The Board instituted a new 360-degree evaluation process this year, which draws opinions from six constituent groups.
Despite support for the board's decision to not allow the evaluation to become policy, Faculty Senate's executive committee spoke out against Burns' letter.
We're concerned about what our own handbook says
and our own handbook speaks to the rights of faculty
Faculty Senate Chairwoman Phyllis Bernt said.
