,_•r_r_~,~ UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
Jli'
State University of New York
Office of the President
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Susanna Fessler, Chair, University Senate
FROM:
George M. Philip, President, University at Albany
SUBJECT:
Council on Administrative Review and Evaluation (CARE)
DATE:
February 6, 2012
While unable to attend Monday's University Senate meeting, I want to inform you of my position and
views regarding the proposed charter amendment entitled, the Council on Administrative Review
and Evaluation (CARE).
I do not support, and will not approve, the proposed charter amendment. My reasons are
outlined below.
First, the proposed charter amendment establishes a Council that would evaluate individual
employees (those who have administrative positions), regardless of the terms and conditions of
employment that may be in place across the negotiating units representing those employees.
Equally important, the Council and its evaluation activities are proposed despite the University
Senate not having the authority to undertake the evaluation of administrative staff. Pursuant to
Article X of the Policies of The Board of Trustees, the faculty of a State-operated institution of
State University of New York (in this case, the University at Albany) has the responsibility "to
participate significantly in the initiation, development and implementation of the educational
program." A plain reading of the faculty's responsibilities cannot reasonably be construed to
include the evaluation of administrative staff in this responsibility.
Second, the University's institutional responsibility to review its effectiveness clearly resides with
the University President. Such authority is vested in the University President under Article IX of the
Policies where the President (as the Chief Administrative Officer) is authorized to administer the
institution and promote its development and effectiveness. To this end, the President, among other
things, is charged with the responsibility to appoint and supervise members of the professional
staff of the University and to assign them such powers, duties and responsibilities as appropriate for
the administration of the institution; and evaluation is a fundamental component of supervision.
Although the University Senate is not vested with the authority to conduct the evaluation of the
University's administrative staff nor of administrative effectiveness, I will seek and welcome the
University Senate's advice as we address the recommendations in our Middle States self study to
"enhance the processes associated with academic assessment while increasing efforts towards
more systemic and sustained assessment processes for administrative
University Hall, Room 302
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12222
PH: 5]8-956-80 JQ FX: 518-956-8022
wW\')'_0 Ill aLly.edll
units. "Guided by the comments of the Middle States site visit team to address this through the
implementation of the strategic plan, this work is already in development, with the past, present, and
next Senate chair serving on the Strategic Plan Implementation Steering Committee. Our work will be
conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Middle States standards. In this regard, it is
important to be clear that the comments of the site visit team affirmed that UAibany fully meets the
accreditation standards of Institutional Assessment. Their report (which, is available on the wiki at:
httos://wiki.albany.edu/display/middlestates/Homel also provided a number of helpful perspectives on
the matter, including a specific statement about the role of faculty.
In addition, I want to take this opportunity to address several issues raised by the proposal of a new
charter amendment. Whether called bylaws or a charter, the faculty under the Policies of The Board of
Trustees is authorized to prepare and adopt internal rules governing its conduct which shall contain: "(1)
Provisions for committees and their responsibilities; (2) Procedures for the calling and conduct of faculty
meetings and elections; and (3) Provisions for such other matters of organization and procedure as
may be necessary for the performance of their responsibilities." Recognizing the University faculty
has neither the responsibility nor the authority under the Policies of the Board to administer the
institution or appoint or supervise members of the professional staff, it cannot merely confer that
authority upon itself through the adoption of provisions of its internal governance documents.
While not all provisions of the internal governance documents require the approval of the University
President, those concerning consultation with the faculty do. Those requiring the allocation of staff or
non-staff resources would also require specific approval. Furthermore, all actions taken by the faculty
under their internal governance documents are merely advisory upon the President in recognition of the
President's legal authority to administer the institution.
Finally, I believe that it would be in the shared interests of both administration and faculty to initiate
conversations regarding issues such as administrative evaluation at the earliest possible point. When
such issues arise in the future, it would be in our collective interests to engage in an interactive dialogue
at the beginning of the policy development process as opposed to its middle or end.
I look forward to continuing the discussion regarding these matters in the days and weeks ahead.
