Last month The Ohio University Board of Trustees unveiled its evaluation of President Roderick McDavis. It was a joke.
The evaluation was not an objective affair but merely a spin move designed to garner good press coverage. It worked.
Most local and regional newspapers parroted the press release written not by an objective reporter (or at least a person pretending to be objective) but by university flack Sally Linder.
The media failed again when it did not mention that the criteria designed to measure McDavis' performance were outlined by McDavis himself.
David Conrad briefly mentioned the item in The Columbus Dispatch:
(Trustees) also concluded a detailed performance evaluation of President Roderick McDavis and offered their support for another year
despite no-confidence votes by professors.
Detailed? Imagine how easy every job would be if anyone could essentially tell their bosses how to evaluate their performance:
What if restaurant chefs were allowed to set their own expectations? Perhaps an unscrupulous cook would find an easy way out on a busy Friday night:
Yes Monsieur you did order the roast duck with orange sauce
our hypothetical culinary friend says. But what you're getting is a cheese sandwich and a Fanta.
As it stands, the evaluation is pointless. Despite the trustees' blanket statement that hinted at them considering the no- confidence votes, they essentially ignored them.
The reputation of this institution is fledgling, the university is losing faith in its leadership and lifetime administrators are fleeing for other positions at the same level on the career ladder.
Something is going on and the trustees'who hardly meet enough to have any idea of what's really happening at the university'choose to whitewash the situation with rehearsed, press-friendly quotes.
Compare these two quotes from C. Daniel DeLawder, the new chairman of the trustees:
From the university press release: We were mindful of the agenda the president was asked to follow when he came to the university three years agoG?The president has met the objectives as outlined for this year. We believe we're on the right path for moving this university forward.
As reported by The Associated Press: Since he came here three years ago
we believe that we remain on the right path for moving this university forward
and are grateful of his work
said trustee C. Daniel DeLawder, who was elected chairman yesterday.
Good job, DeLawder.
The trustees' reluctance to acknowledge the problems plaguing the university will only stir up the discontent.
While many within the university have no faith in McDavis, few are calling for resignation. Most are urging that he be given a chance, but for how long will those people restrain their rhetoric when McDavis' supposed bosses ignore their voices?
Yet the trustees should be given some credit. While it is true that the evaluation was glowing, on close reading, it is much more nuanced. Take for example the trustees comments on McDavis' communication with faculty: While the trustees wrote that McDavis took visible steps to reach out to faculty'which included attending at least one faculty meeting in every department at the university'they also strongly suggested the quality of the interaction should be improved.
DeLawder even suggested that McDavis is surprising too many faculty members and perhaps even the trustees with some of his decisions.
But again, few people would regard communication rife with surprises to be in good order. Did the trustees really listen to the faculty input they solicited?
Picking and choosing what to use in an evaluation is too convenient and temporary good news will not solve the university's image problems as the discontent continues to fester. The evaluation is a huge misstep.
17
Archives
