HOW CAN UTMB PROVOST ACT ON POST-TENURE REVIEW CASES?

With Dr. Callender's appointing School of Medicine Dean Garland Anderson as UTMB Provost, one has to think about what the good provost could be called to act upon.  At other universities, the provost often gets into the act for tenure and post-tenure reviews.  Of course, deans almost always get involved, and Dr. Anderson also still serves as the SOM dean.

Unfortunately, Dr. Anderson, who began working at UTMB long before the legislature passed the post-tenure review law, never went through the post-tenure review process, even before he replaced former Dean Parisi in 2006.  (Although the law does not provide for an exception, administrators generally cut themselves a lot of slack on the post-tenure review process, even though they are equally fond of giving themselves tenure.)  In short, either somebody made a conscious decision NOT to put him through the process and he went along with it, or he slipped through the cracks and didn't remind anyone.  Either way, there would seem to be a credibility problem for the good provost/dean when it comes to tenure issues. Clearly, Texas law was not followed.   

Click on the link below to see the list of administrators who had and had not undergone the post-tenure review process as of the time the Blogmeister requested the information:

Download som_administrator_posttenure_review_070628.pdf   

So, rather than wait until it comes up, the Blogmeister thought he would alert UTMB officials, not to mention those who might be reviewed by the provost someday, to the issue.  Let's have a little talk about integrity someday, too. . . .   

Comments

Wow! Any news about how faculty are faring in post-tenure review? it was supposed to be only advisory for faculty development. Ha!

The evaluation of departmental chairman and other academic administrators is provided for by Rule: 31101 of the Board of Regents' "Rules and Regulations"; not by the rules for tenured faculty.

[Blogmeister comment: Now, show me the law that says administrators can be treated differently. That aside, the good provost wasn't an administrator when he failed to undergo post-tenure review. Chairmen are considered faculty. When I ask for anything about "all administrators" via the Public Info Act, I don't get a thing about chairs.]

Blogmeister...If you read Rule: 31101 you will find that it includes the title of "Chairman" as an administrative title.

[Blogmeister comment: Yep, I've seen it. He's still a tenured faculty member and still has to undergo a review every six years by law and even by that UT policy. According to UTMB, he didn't. Neither did Stobo. There's leadership by example!

I really hate to see administrators give themselves tenure because of things like this. They want the protections, slim as they are nowadays, of tenure without the accountability. They'll hit faculty over the head with this or that policy but routinely ignore them themselves.]