Title: VP Kimberly Espy is the driving force behind UO's scientific research output
Author: No way I'm telling, she controls their budget and their future.
Abstract: UO VP for Research and Innovation Kimberly Espy has a key role in almost all of UO's scientific research output.
Data: We obtained data by searching uo press releases for "espy". In keeping with NSF data disclosure rules, primary data is below, and a complete data set is available at http://uonews.uoregon.edu/search/node/espy
Methods: We analyzed the most recent 12 months of UO's press releases about research using standard textual analysis procedures.
Results: 98.6% of UO releases included references to or quotes from VP Espy. In a comparison group of other AAU publics, an average of 0.7% of press releases mentioned their VP for research.
Results: 98.6% of UO releases included references to or quotes from VP Espy. In a comparison group of other AAU publics, an average of 0.7% of press releases mentioned their VP for research.
Conclusion: VP Espy has a key role in the vast majority of UO's research. If President Gottfredson fires her, scientific research at UO, or at least self-promoting press releases funded by money that should have gone to scientific research, would quickly grind to a halt.
2/21/13: See below for RAP report. I've got a bunch more documents to post later. Keep them coming, friends.
2/20/2013. Espy was Bean's pick, and she's been a disaster. Let's end it:
Dear Senate President Kyr:
I would like to make a motion for a vote of no confidence in VP for Research Kimberly Espy at the next Senate meeting, to be followed by a vote at the following meeting.
The next scheduled meeting is for March 13, and I'm wondering when the next possible date for a vote would be after that.Gottfredson can defend her in the Senate if he really believes in her. Chip Kelly did good with that no-huddle offense, time for the faculty to take a clue from the athletic side.
2/21/2013: Bean's Feb 1 email on Espy, with full report link below. (Note how Bean sat on it for 3 weeks before he even sent it around to the heads. He was off on his Fiesta Bowl junket for part of the time.)
Subject: Research Advisory Panel Final Report
From: Office of the Provost
Colleagues:
Attached please find the final report of the Research Advisory Panel (RAP) consisting of Ed Kame’enui (chair), Geri Richmond and Pete von Hippel. The report deals with recent issues between a subset of faculty and institutes, and office of the Vice President of Research and Innovation. It goes beyond that to analyze the overall environment for research at UO. Given our strong desire to expand the AAU metrics, as noted in Goal 1 of the Academic Plan, improving this environment it critical to the future of the University. They present several recommendations for moving forward. Some of the recommendations have already been accomplished, some we are starting to implement immediately, and some will lead to healthy discussion. All will serve our process of improvement.
As a follow-up to this report, Vice President Espy has been meeting with individual faculty to discuss some of the issues presented to me last fall in a meeting at the new Lokey Labs. We are scheduling a town hall meeting to discuss the research environment at UO, report on progress from the RAP Report, and discuss other ideas for significantly enhancing research at UO. More details on that event will follow.
I want to thank the Research Advisory Panel for an exceptional piece of work. They were chosen for the committee because they held a variety of opinions on the issues at hand. Through hard work and deliberation they came to understand the actual data surrounding the research enterprise here, and to understand each other’s perspectives. In doing so, they give us a well-informed and well-balanced perspective to begin our discussion. We owe them our gratitude.
Regards, Jim
Presumably, Bean's "choice" to step down implies that there is no need for severance package. (Surely this can be confirmed?) Espy... will you be choosing to step down anytime soon?
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of the French Revolution.
ReplyDeleteSans-cullotes rally!
DeleteI'm no fan of Espy's but I'd wait to see if the new advisory cmte and recent review have any effect. She came out like a bull in a china shop, made a lot of mistakes and enemies, but some good procedures are in place, I hear she's chastened and things are improving. For these no confidence votes to work they must appear to show good judgment, and not merely be punitive.
ReplyDeleteAgree- opinion on this one is not so uniform. Bean can be blamed for the fiasco in communication and total lack of oversight, especially with new implications of the budget model. Hiring her is not all on his shoulders, on interview she was a fave for faculty too. Things have been terrible and there are still big problems, but ORSA is working and indirect rate is up and some programs seem good.
DeleteIs there a new advisory committee, though? Zero communication.
I know it exists, and I know of one member, but you're right: I searched everywhere on-line and couldn't find any indication about its charge, membership, how to contact anybody...
DeleteDog says
DeleteThere has been a wholesale rush to judgement on Espy which is
unfair. Yes she made decisions (and at the UO decisions always piss people off) and yes she made some poor decisions in the short term. But she was dealt a major shit hand and inherited the ORSA clusterfuck (editorial note: clusterfuck is a legitimate phrase in the Marine's handbook of protocol) which placed her in an environment where she had to make some "bad" sort term decisions. But, as noted above, things are improving and I think she should be given a reasonable period of time to prove failure.
The concerns weren't unfair or a 'wholesale rush.' There was genuine and broad alarm that her initial decisions were eroding the research environment, and that nobody was listening. That's justifiable cause for action! However, to her credit and from hard work by other people, at this point there is mixed support, so it's not a clear-cut vote of no confidence.
DeleteDog responds
Deletewell in my view, reaction to initial decisions when the context is rather unknown, constitutes the kind of unfair
and knee-jerk judgement which is rampant around here. A pattern of poor decisions (i.e. Bean) over a reasonable time period would allow for a fair judgement and in the case of Bean, not even that happened.
Mostly, everyone sucks upon initial exposure. Give people at least time to evolve and/or establish a pattern of repeated absurd behavior, before you call for their heads.
From what I hear about the faculty review of Espy that just finished, Bean pushed pretty hard to protect Espy and the report was toned down a lot. Maybe things will change now that he's out?
DeleteI don't suck upon initial exposure.
Deleteto Dog: I agree to some extent about knee-jerk reactions to decisions per se and to novelty. however, Espy went way overboard with her mandate to clean up; overstepped a lot of bounds; and wasn't remotely consultative. some stuff she "fixed" wasn't initially broken. some stuff she broke. all this was exacerbated by poor oversight (for which Bean is to be blamed).
Deletehowever, the SAP report (which I actually find bizarre in many ways) gives ample weight to "context", maybe even too much. many of the problems I know about can't be explained away by any of the excuses you suggest.
still, I think that with the acknowledgement of the massive outcry that first resulted and an appropriate faculty advisory/oversight body in place--if not sufficiently public--there's hope for improvement. Espy should be given a chance to do her admittedly difficult job before a second roasting is scheduled.
Dog says
Deleteagreed
Dog blathers slightly more
DeleteI think in particular Espy's aggressive behavior in terms of compliance issues coupled with an apparent inability to be consultative were bad initial moves but I think we have moved beyond that now and the compliance issues really were serious and had to be be dealt with swiftly.
My experience is that she is not closed minded on anything but is hyper-sensitive to compliance issues - but some of that is in her job description ...
Dog: If we consider the full range of poor decisions by the VPRI, they clearly fit your description of "A pattern of poor decisions...over a reasonable time period would allow for a fair judgement". She has consistently created poor outcomes over the course of a 19 month "initial" period. I suppose evaluating your perspective would require that knowledge of which problems you are and are not aware of. Perhaps the problems have been more widespread than you realize? On Oct 22, Jim Bean met with around 30 concerned faculty that spanned across Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Psychology, and various humanities institutes. The grave concerns raised in that meeting suggest that there is a deeper problem than a knee-jerk reaction to a few initial decisions. She's just not very good at her job.
DeleteDog says
DeleteYes I understand your perspective exists. I just don't subscribe to it (yet).
Dog: If you're open to forming your opinion based on an actual record of misdeeds and/or accomplishments, then I'm satisfied.
DeleteBut your initial statements in this thread suggest that you had already determined it was a "rush to judgment". I beg to differ on that point. After 19 or so terrible months, carefully considered reviews are available. Unless you can convince me the many concerns that have been raised are baseless then it seems to me that your evaluation is the rushed one.
Dog says
DeleteI am not sure the SAP is easily available - I have read it -
agree with some (particularly the first two points) but not
with some others.
My experience has not been 19 terrible months - my experience
was about 7 terrible months.
Only the future actions of the VPRI can convince you. I don't believe the concerns are baseless, I believe there is
reason to be concerned (startup, change of insititue ICC
formulas, etc) but I also believe that this entire process is evolutionary, on some timescale (I don't know what that is) and will mostly be positive.
I could be wrong.
I try to form my opinions only on actual records and not
multiple perspectives.
Dog Says
ReplyDeletethanks for posting the full report.
Everyone: Its important to read the very last page.
Look - most of the people pissing and moaning about Espy are:
ReplyDelete1. Departments or Institutes that are dreadfully in debt and she is making them accountable.
2. Departments or Institutes who were on fixed F&A returns and now that they are on variable (i.e, getting $$$ according to how much grant money they bring in), have seen their ICC monies plummet.
3. Departments or Institutes who have been dreadfully out of compliance on NIH human subject and animal rules.
I am certainly not her biggest fan, but she inherited a $hit-$how from Linton and is having to deal will research PIs who break rules and think money grow on trees..... as Dog says, read the last page to see how dire RIGE's finances were for FY12.
They don't give a shit; they want more blood.
DeleteDog says.
DeleteYes those are the offended folks espy is trying to institute accountability which has short term negative fallout - indeed I have been personally disadvantaged by some of this but that doesn't transform me to be automatically pissed off - it merely requires me to do business slightly differently now than under the Linton era of free reign by PIs
Seriously - the amount of mismanagement at the Institute and Departmental level is obscene. If you follow that down all the way to individual PI accounts, you realize that this place is teetering on the edge. The best we can do is put out fires at this point making the "strategic planning" that's going where everyone is bracing for a big resource grab (applied sciences anyone?) even more dubious than it otherwise would be. Maybe they should just hand out the glocks to the faculty to be used as one sees fit?
DeleteYou're nuts.
DeleteIf you saw the numbers you'd also be nuts.
DeleteIt was fun and games under Linton, but at some point the gravy train comes to an end. I've seen many PIs behaving like children, and in some ways Espy is the rational adult who's stepping in and putting an end to the party.
DeleteYeah, the kids are going to be angry at Mom, but when they finally grow up they'll realize that Mom was right.
Calling back to the report,
DeleteShe’s impulsive; doesn’t collaborate; dismissive and patronizing; not a mature manager; treats faculty like children; fails to build trust; she bullies and steamrolls people.
If you're being treated like children, maybe it's because you're acting like children.
Exhibit #1: Zebrafish $3.6 million over budget, with $3.1 million covered by VPRI.
DeleteHoly. Shit.
Exhibit #2: LISB $3.5 M short funded.
DeleteThis must explain why the toilets in that building don't flush.
You know it is a bad idea to use metaphors like that. We all say things we'd like to take back, like, "You're nuts." But let's not go there, okay? Let's have a bright line on that. Okay?
ReplyDeleteYes, I'd discourage glock references. Please
DeleteYes, while I respect everyone's first amendment rights to defend their second amendment rights, and vice versa, I will delete any future comments that even suggest threats of violence.
DeleteI'm no researcher. Nor associated with the UO. But when I read something as stilted and pedantic as the RAP report, I wonder what is being papered over. How about that the UO ranks 109th in research expenditures among US universities, comfortably nestled above New Mexico's Institute of Mining and Technology and below the University of Nevada at Reno? The UO has not ranked in the top 100 in a generation. The issues go much deeper than one administrator cum scapegoat.
ReplyDeleteOn this occasion, there are a couple of things that we know that we learned from fact magazine:
DeleteOne, the king wears a king hat and lives in a king house
Two, your time will come, but tonight is our night, so you should give us all of your drugs.
A few issues:
* Wages have been stagnant here. Being shackled to the state bureaucracy has killed opportunities to hire people, pay them what they're worth, and retain them.
* Speaking of being shackled to the state, we all know what happened to Lariviere when he tried to break us free. He's now at a place that actually values excellence.
* We have an aging faculty that doesn't seem particularly interested in building a bright new future. Look hard at your department. How many excellent teachers and researchers have been denied tenure because current faculty feel threatened?
* Football.
There was some chatter earlier in the thread about how the push for an Applied Sciences program is going to be a "resource grab." The reality is a resource grab like that can attract really bright and motivated people, and kick-start some new research that puts us back on the map. We may be the "flagship" University, but the reality is that we're more style than substance. Compare to Oregon State: the University that "gets shit done," or Portland State: the University that's "hip and with it," or OHSU: the University that "fucking sold out and is kicking ass because of it."
but even those of us with active extramural awards and budgets in the black get the same short shrift from that office
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need validation from her office? You're in the black, good for you. Thanks for doing your job. Do you want a cookie?
DeleteIf she were tossing everyone overboard there would be nobody left. The reality, despite those who have actually left, indicates a full deck of research happening at UO.
What we've got is so much better than Linton, unless you were one of the groups benefitting from Linton's Largesse.
Zapruder, regarding your metaphor for the VP as a mother and the faculty as spoiled children: sometimes an asshole is just an asshole. Nobody deserves to be supervised by an asshole.
ReplyDeleteDog on assholes
Deleteremember, Dog's are experts on assholes - no doubt.
Espy is aggressive, particularly on compliance issues. Sometimes that posture works and sometimes it doesn't. I have seen both sides. I am not sure if the children analogy is correct but it is true that PIs were "spoiled" under linton and could do all kinds of things (which did get the UO in trouble).
In my experience as a PI at the UO - the research office has never really been all that helpful no matter who the VPRI is/was and that ORSA has essentially always been a disaster and that disaster got greatly escalated under Linton's last couple of years.
In general there has not been much support for PIs coming from the VPR office - one of the reasons is that the support was or has been provided by the institutes. If your not in an institute, life as a PI is a bit harder than if you are, in my experience.
Plus, every asshole has an opinion.
DeleteI don't mind a few cusswords but the above is pointless and I will start deleting similar comments.
DeleteThe point of the above is that calling someone an asshole is pointless.
DeleteDog,
DeleteI'm curious to know how you feel about ORSA right now. Is it getting any better? Any student of calculus who pays attention quickly learns that while the magnitude of a function tells a story, it's rate of change can be so much more interesting to the issue at hand.
Working for assholes? I've done it before. I'll do it again. If I didn't work for assholes I wouldn't be working at all (even if I were self-employed).
DeleteBack when I had delusions of being an author, a creative writing teacher one told me that "everyone one is an asshole, it's what we do with it that matters."
Dog to Zapruder
Deleteon ORSA
as far as the front end pre-award stuff goes, I think ORSA has actually gotten worse. Rebecca Roby was pretty good but she got "promoted" to Post award stuff. I think the post award stuff has gotten slightly better. I think the management of the ORSA enterprise under Espy has gotten
better (in the sense that she is paying attention) than under Linton because look what happened under Linton - we ended up outsouring ORSA.
But the pre-award lack of competence and service annoys me and I have been in Espy's face about it and plan to again in about 2 weeks when my next grant deadline occurs and I won't know what ORSA is doing ....
Zapruder's comments would have more force if he announced that he had no direct link with administration at UO. But that would be a lie.
ReplyDeleteZapruder's comments are about as forceful as anything I've seen, whoever he is. But your ad hominem comment is fallacious.
DeleteIs it really an ad hominem attack to suggest someone has a link to the UO administration? It shouldn't be.
DeleteIt is an ad hominem attack to suggest the force of the comment depends on who makes it.
DeleteWhen the core of an argument is a metaphor about parents and children, then arguments supporting the administration are indeed less forceful when they are made by administrators or their close associates. How much weight do you place on the revelation that the VPRI's (highly paid and numerous) underlings support her track record?
Delete1. You ignored her/his most recent and forceful comment. 2. Your question is irrelevant to that comment.
DeleteI'm not part of the UO administration. I'm in no position to ever be an administrator. I am involved in research on campus, and I've experienced first hand some of the "negative" decisions that Espy has made. A trusted friend asked me to reevaluate my low opinion of her and consider that her decisions might have rational reasons based on information I wasn't privy to. Espy regularly pisses off this trusted friend of mine.
DeleteShort of posting my name IRL, I won't be able to convince you otherwise, but like everyone else here I have a lot to lose. I really love the work I do here in service of the University, and outing myself for the sake of this argument isn't worth the potential loss. At least right now.
However, I'd be willing to meet UOM in person to validate that I'm truthful.
You shouldn't have to. Loyalty oaths are only required under tyrannies.
DeleteConsidering the list of her accomplishments is riding on the backs of hard working REAL researchers, I'd say she needs to go. She uses her name and title more than she works for the faculty....oh wait...our administration quit that notion of "being in service to the faculty and students" years ago when DF came along. That's when research and education took a back seat to wealth and status as an administrator.
ReplyDeleteYup...find a new seat warmer for her chair that WILL work in service to the faculty and students and you will see....this university grow and prosper again...until then...same old shit.
Horseshit. Of course she would be quoted in the media. That's part of her job.
DeleteGoogle UW. VPR is Eaton. Compare
Deletesite:www.washington.edu/news/category/research/
with
site:www.washington.edu/news/category/research/ eaton
Hundreds of press releases, all about the science and researchers, no puffery about Eaton
There is one piece, mentioning his promotion to VP for grad school. His *new* salary is listed $253K. We pay Espy $295K, for a research portfolio about 1/4 the size of UW's.
Horseshit.
DeleteUO administrators take credit when credit is not due. They come in, set down and think hard of what crap they can come up with next to enrich themselves and take from the real hard working people 'round here that do come to campus everyday
IN SERVICE TO THE FACULTY WHO ARE HERE FOR THE STUDENTS AND WE ARE ALL HERE FOR BETTER EDUCATION.
If you are here for any other reason....you.. dear horseshit are in the wrong place AND SHOULD REMOVE YOUR SHIT AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE!
Not all UO administrators take credit not due. And some may serve students directly. Should they leave too?
DeletePlease tone it down, Angry. We're all there, and we get it.
DeleteAngry could chair your Committee on Public Safety (Google French Revolution).
DeleteAngry old lady, in addition to being angry, you are viciously stupid. Please consider my words discerningly the next time you consider voicing an opinion.
DeleteDog Says
Deletehey another phrase for tenure recommendation letters ,...
"viciously stupid"
keep 'em coming ...
I think he meant "stupidly vicious."
DeleteNo, I meant exactly what I said.
DeleteBut what I said was mean and unnecessary. Sadly, this blog has brought out a great deal of negativity in me, because it is populated by people--including Angry old lady--with opinions with which I disagree very much and believe are uninformed and rooted in motivations that go beyond the University of Oregon's best interests.
I will try, though, to limit my comments toward other posters to constructive dialogue.
In my opinion, Dr. Espy is self-serving and self-promoting. She does not listen nor does she understand the needs of individual researchers. She has hired an additional layer of bureaucracy. She has made decisions that impact Centers without considering the consequences for those who use them. She doesn't appear to be a team player unless you're on "her" team ("the LISB way"). She retaliates against those she disagrees with. Maybe her style would be successful somewhere else, but certainly not here.
ReplyDeleteDog says to Anon above
DeleteYes I can see this and she needs to be mindful of this perception of her and evolve away from actions that reinforce this perception. I believe she will - other's don't think such evolution will occur.
If being self-serving and self-promoting is a basis for termination, who will teach and do research?
DeleteThere is a new advisory committee for Espy but its members were hand picked by her with no faculty consultation. Nothing has changed.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this advisory committee should be vested in the Senate, and elected by the faculty. Then there would be no question how to find out it charge and membership--something apparently "top secret" at the momen.
DeleteSome of the most egregious errors she has made are not addressed in the RAP report or the commentary above. These include bungled faculty recruitment, bungled faculty retention, and outrageous meddling in faculty searches.
ReplyDeleteWhere are those documented?
DeleteI expect to have more on this before too long, certainly well before the vote. There's plenty of material from what I've seen so far.
DeleteThe two "bungled faculty retentions" that I know of were either of someone who had run an animal facility into deep debt or someone who didn't have any grant money. I wouldn't call either of those bungled....
DeleteI'm still sticking to my post from yesterday - it all comes down to $$$$ and her holding departments/institutes/PIs financially accountable.
I am curious to know what is UO Matters beef with her?
I have little interaction with her and no personal beefs.
DeletePlenty of other faculty whom I respect very much have some serious, well documented problems with her that go well beyond personality and the difficult situation she faced coming in.
People persuaded me that the RAP report was orchestrated and manipulated by Bean to produce the outcome he wanted - covering up his own responsibility for the decline in UO research and preserving the status quo he had created with Espy. UO has suffered from that sort of mismanagement for long enough.
Then when Gottfredson's email about Bean's resignation said that Bean would continue to have management responsibilities next year - which would of course potentially include more opportunities for him to delay real discussion about what to do about UO's research problems - I decided I'd had enough, so I put up the Senate motion for a vote of no confidence in Espy. (Or in the VP for R&I, if that sounds more politic.)
What a shame she was not given the fair process any of us would expect before having our character impugned.
DeleteI had a different take on the report - while it does point out a number of problems with Espy and her office, it was clear from my read (and reading between the lines) that the real problem was Bean, not her. This interpretation was corroborated in a conversation I had with one of the RAP authors.
DeleteWe need to keep in mind that Espy was indeed hired through a national search and is not a DF & Co. cronie. Spend your time going after Geller instead...
Now, if she could get the $1.83 million a year that Bean has been spending on the Jock Box back for the academic side, that would be an impressive accomplishment for her to put on the plus side.
DeleteWith respect to your opinions on other matters related to UO administrators, I have to disagree with your assessment of Espy.
DeleteBean? Clearly incompetent, clearly self-serving.
Espy? Maybe clumsy, but making the best of a bad situation. Dog asked everyone to look at the last page of the posted report. Really, look at the last page. It's damning of Linton, it's damning of the situation she found herself in, but it isn't necessarily damning of her. Word around the water cooler is that she's taken much of the negative feedback to heart, and is finding ways to improve her work and the work of her office. To toss her out now, in my opinion, would be much more detrimental to the structure and workings of the University. Who on earth would follow her after she was run out on a rail?
It's difficult to be patient after years of corruption and incompetence.
She's not corrupt. She's tone deaf at times, but not incompetent, and I believe that she genuinely wants to do good for the University and not just herself. There are going to be a lot of people who are unhappy with her decisions, but that's much more an indicator of the times than the person.
I'd also like you to consider that there is a person behind this, and not everyone in a position of leadership is going to meet our expectations. Great leaders are rare, and even if she doesn't grow into greatness, given the chance I think she will put us in a place to find someone who will. That in itself is worthy.
Patience and compassion would serve all of us better, especially in a place where I think it's deserved.
Your fixation on the last page of the RAP report overlooks the unfortunate fact that the report only scratches the surface of Espy's failed decisions. Take note of the fact that the RAP committee never even met as a committee with a single one of the faculty that raised complaints. The resulting report makes some important and legitimate points, but it really doesn't even describe the worst aspects of the VPRI disaster.
DeleteYes, these are challenging fiscal times at UO, but that simply doesn't provide compelling cover for Espy's dismal performance. Although many rush to the conclusion that the complaints are only about faculty unwilling to make the difficult decisions that come with limited resources, Espy's failings are actually rooted in an inability to understand and respect the scientific programs she is supposed to support. Documentation that goes beyond the RAP report will eventually help to make this clear.
Please remember that there are real people who suffer because of her clumsy incompetence.
indeed, very real people....
DeleteProve it.
DeleteI can think of only three reasons for Espy's profligate self-aggrandizing posture in UO research-related press releases. First, she thinks she actually contributed to the research in a substantive manner. I think that hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand; she may have an inflated ego, but she's not crazy.
ReplyDeleteSecond, she thinks these scientists work for her; that she is one of their bosses who by virtue of the chain-of-command deserves mention. That seems possible, but unlikely.
Third, Espy thinks her pithy and generally inane little quips are of actual value to the news media in understanding the research and its importance (when there is no discernible import, she seeks by her puffery to create some out of whole cloth). Sounds parsimonious to me.
Whatever other skills Espy may bring to the job, she's simply not competent at media relations. She would be well advised to stop trying to add her two cents to everyone else's business.
I have heard it is a policy that the VPR be quoted in these news releases. Many researchers find it silly. But it is harmless at worst, and at best serves to help bring attention to the office in the hopes that the hyping helps bring in resources from central administration by making them aware researchers need support from the VPR.
DeleteYou have heard correctly - it is policy.
DeleteIf you've got a copy of the email or memo, please post the text.
DeleteI heard it directly from one of her underlings - best not say who....
DeleteYes, especially if the underling didn't know what contempt you held for him/her.
DeleteFrom what I hear, it's for the protection of the underlings.
DeleteRegardless of the source of the information there should be a written policy than can be produced to verify this information.
DeleteGood advice. If pithy and inane quips were grounds for termination, who would be left to teach?
ReplyDeletePlenty of faculty would still be around.
Delete...until the faculty contract is executed.
DeleteDog Reminds
ReplyDeleteAnd of course there is this bullshit to deal with and it relates
to compliance within the sequestration rules - someone has to monitor this ...
Good Afternoon PIs:
Agencies are beginning to address consequences of a possible sequestration.
NIH has just released the NIH Operation Plan in the Event of a Sequestration (NOT-OD-13-043)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-043.html
Summary: All non-competing continuation awards will continue to be funded at approximately 90% of previously committed level. In the event of a sequestration, NIH will “likely will reduce the final FY 2013 funding levels of non-competing continuation grants and expects to make fewer competing awards to allow the agency to meet the available budget allocation.” Non-competing continuation awards that have already been made may be restored but will likely not reach FY2013 commitment levels. Questions regarding specific cuts to your project may be directed to the NIH Grants Management Specialist assigned your project.
Other agencies will likely take a similar stance. Sponsored Project Services will continue to keep you abreast of changes as they occur. Your pre-award Sponsored Project Administrator is available to help you plan and develop your continuation budgets. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.
Dog, a very good reminder of why the other cheek is on point
DeleteThe comment from "The Other Cheek" is excellent. I was thinking of elaborating, but I can't say it any better!
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous! I as far as I can tell Espy is working her butt off to improve research here. She tries to promote and publicize the research that goes on here (which is critical to our standing around the state of oregon!) and get ridiculed. This is stupid! There is general lack of support for research from CAS and higher (postdocs and graduate tuition are so expensive that grants don't go far!). That is not her fault. From reading some of the silly comments it is as if folks don't know that she was a quite accomplished Professor in Cognitive Neuroscience at Nebraska prior to coming here.
ReplyDeleteFor crying out loud, everyone needs to stop complaining about Espy and start working harder and smarter to compete for grants, students, and raise our research profile!
If so, pray tell me what she has to show for it? I don't think anyone has ever alleged she's lazy. Merely that she's thrown enormous energy into making enemies of nearly everyone she encounters. Thus the climate for research--even, pathetically, in the Humanities--has worsened. She may be working hard, but so far she's mostly been working wrong.
DeleteUnfortunately, Espy's tendency to drive away high-achieving faculty is contrary to your goal of raising our research profile. Our goals should include avoiding the fate of Nebraska, where she a main player in the administration that presided over their recent loss of AAU status.
DeleteDog says
DeleteThe UO doesn't produce many PHD degrees and we have had a graduate student under enrollment for at least 15 years relative to an average AAU research University. This has been a long standing problem. I don't think hiring Espy is the criteria for getting kicked out of the AAU.
You're right Dog. The criteria is maintaining research excellence (measured by various metrics such as number of PhDs, research stature, funding, etc). So though it's not based on whether we hired any particular individual, it IS impacted by whether the VPRI is driving away high-achieving faculty and hindering efforts to recruit new high-achieving faculty.
DeleteWho in the VPRI is tending to the question of PhD production. Someone should be checking the stats, talking to the departments with dropping rates, and identifying a means to address the problem. It has never been clear to me whether its a good idea to have the VP office of research also be the graduate school.
DeleteDog says
DeleteIn my areas of research the UO is generally unable to compete
with other universities in the area of startup funds. This has been going on for some time. Not that high startup packages equate with faculty excellence but they sometimes equate with opening up new research areas which could grow our grad student population. I can say that in at least one new faculty hire which does open up new areas of research, Espy was quite helpful in ensuring that hire would happen.
Dog Says
DeleteIndeed it is a HORRIBLE (a non cuss word) idea to mix together VPR and Dean of Grad school. Both 1/2's will get
non-linearly neglected. I have no idea why anyone thought
this was good or necessary or hasn't corrected it yet. We need a separate Dean of the Grad School. Period. Its clear to me that Linton paid not much attention to the Grad School. I don't know about Espy yet.
Thanks, Dog. I have never understood either, and never heard anybody say anything positive about the combo, and always suspected it was a bad idea.
DeleteMy impression is that Espy has paid no attention to grad school stuff, delegating to subordinates whose hands are simultaneously tied. Perhaps now is the time to push to divide the offices.
Pushy Dog says
Deleteagreed on Push - perhaps with new Prez and Provost (coming) and I know they read some of the stuff here via staff - that the time is right to make the argument.
Certainly ZERO improvement has a occurred as a result of this combination of duties - why continue it? Can the senate propose a motion to unsplit this?
It is a problem to have a VPR and graduate dean in one person. Support for easy mechanisms to increase graduate numbers such as training grants has been poor, with support reduced from previous levels forcing TG directors to go begging to multiple departments to make up the difference. This is likely due to research dollars being so constrained. But better to have separate budgets and separate priorities.
DeleteI am with dog, the other cheek, and others calling for patience. Linton struck me as a good ol' boy (& not being one), Espy strikes me as considerably fairer. Although last year's miserly start-up packages were a fiasco, this year is much better. Also, having never received special benefits from the old regime, I am sensitive to how operations have significantly improved: OPHS is starting to work again, ORSA is better, and there are professionals in the development office.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, though, to see a list of people who have been driven away. It gets thrown around quite a bit, but don't for the life of me know any actual names (and associated research grant values). Can someone use the space below to elaborate? Enquiring minds want to know.
DeleteI want to know!
Dog says
DeleteI believe that list is very small and likely arbitrary. I know of only one case, and I will protect, the innocent, where a PI walked out of Espy's office and said "Fuck this, I am outta here ..."
It would be better to produce a list of science PIs that were here prior to Espy and then are no longer here - some left
for other reasons - but the overall attrition rate would be
nice to document.
the people with that information are also likely looking for jobs.....probably not going to provide identifying information to "prove it" to people that cannot/will not do anything to help the situation
DeleteDog, your beliefs are hardly worth much given how little you know about it.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, you could have figured out with a little consideration that it takes time to move from one institution to the next, even for excellent faculty who will be attractive to other institutions. For there to be an already large number of faculty at other institutions would have required people to make a decision, inquire, interview, and leave within the first 10 months of Espy's tenure. Even for someone as terrible as this VPRI, that is just not a likely timetable.
And as for the anon who wants to know about "associated research grant values": that is such a pitiful administrator perspective you reveal, where only grant dollars and not significance of research seem to be of interest. The large list of faculty complaining about our VPRI do represent a lot of indirect costs, but it is more important that they represent some of the most successful research programs on campus as well. You sound like a short-sighted bean counter. Unfortunately, that is an all too common assessment of the VPRI's perspective.
I think Espy should be put on a one-year probation. If she cannot comply with the changes requested by faculty, then she should find herself another job.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that she has streamlined some processes, but she has created layers of bureaucracy and has been vested with too much decision-making power. To top that off, she is condescending to faculty from what I have seen at the meetings.
Exactly how much $$$ has she brought in, what major research connection has she developed since she got here and how much has UO paid for her research-related trips? Some accounting here would be good.
Your logic is sound, but history dictates that the response will be a raise and a pat on the head. Who do these uppity faculty and researchers think they are?
Delete