On TuesdaySep 4, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Angela Wilhelms <email@example.com> wrote:
The contract is a personnel matter between the president and the board, in this case led by the board chair. General input as you suggest was not solicited. As you are aware, matters before the board – including this contract – are posted online for review and anyone is able to make public comment if they so desire.
If you are asking more generally about the valuation, not the contract per se, the adopted presidential evaluation process was followed, which includes feedback from direct reports, deans, and trustees. The faculty, staff, and student trustee often provide information gleaned from the prior year’s office hours, interactions with various groups, etc. And much of the trustees information is also informed by routine updates. The more comprehensive 360-style review is in year five.
Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon
Resolution: Amendments to Presidential Review Management and Process
From: Bill Harbaugh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Angela Wilhelms <email@example.com>
Cc: Elizabeth Skowron <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Melanie Muenzer <email@example.com>
Subject: Presidential contract renewal input
Dear Board Secretary Wilhelms:
I’m writing as Senate President to ask you to provide the Senate with information showing which UO faculty members, students, administrators, or employees were asked to provide to provide input to the board regarding President Schill’s proposed contract renewal, and what process was used to solicit this input (e.g. letters, anonymous surveys, etc.)
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon