Expedited administrative review — next steps
April 7, 2021
— by Dan White, chancellor
Last Friday, regarding the expedited administrative management review report. Over the weekend, I received a number of questions and concerns about the report
and the process that I want to address.
A primary concern originated from the fact that not all colleges or units were represented
on the Expedited Administrative Management Review Committee. At the same time, one
area of focus in the committee’s report that received significant attention was the
structure, efficiency and effectiveness of CRCD. Because none of the eight members
of the committee were from CRCD, this drew additional concern about the significance
of the comments in this area. No committee can include representatives of all areas
of the university. There should be no doubt, however, that as we strive to achieve
our strategic goal of global leadership in ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Native and Indigenous studies, we
remain committed to the mission of our rural campuses, their role in our university,
and the leadership of the vice chancellor for rural, community and Native education.
Outside of two non-voting administrative appointees, the members were selected by
your governance leaders. In my , I wrote about the shared responsibility of shared governance. As I wrote then, this
requires a deep and demonstrated commitment and the belief that, working together,
we more effectively meet our goals. It also requires participation in shared governance
and attention to the many roles that are played by Faculty Senate, Staff Council and
the Associated Students of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ (including selecting membership for committees).
A word on the process of : The process began with a request by the Governance Coordinating Committee (a committee
composed of governance leadership) for another year of expedited administrative review.
I agreed to this review as a parallel process to the expedited academic review.
To enable the process, I asked all of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ’s administrators to write evaluations of
their positions and structures for the committee’s review. The to public comment before I make decisions based on their recommendations. As I mentioned
on Friday, I will accept some recommendations, likely modify some and not proceed
with others. But first I want to hear from you. The original timeline was delayed
by 10 days at the request of the committee for extra writing time. As such, the public
comment period will now be open until April 16. . I look forward to your feedback.
Thank you.