Spring Break
President Murano critical of review
Murano sends Chancellor McKinney heated letter in response to job review
By: Kalee Bumguardner
Issue date: 6/9/09 Section: News
Texas A&M University System Chancellor Mike McKinney gave A&M President Elsa Murano a critical assessment of her first year on the job.
Annual performance reviews are required of all Texas A&M employees, usually filed by May 31. Murano said that it was her understanding that the review was done out of cycle at the request of the Board of Regents. The review was filed February 9.
McKinney rated Murano's performance on a wide variety of areas, from management to communication skills to personal attributes, grading her on a scale from one to five - 1 being poor and 5 excellent.
The majority of McKinney's ratings were 2's and 3's; however, Murano received a 1 on "follow through," "acting decisively and timely" and "team player," and a 4 on "focus on organizational mission," "crisis management" and "relationship with colleagues and professional associations."
In response to her evaluation, Murano sent a letter to McKinney and all nine members of the Board of Regents, directly refuting the contents of the evaluation and defending her job performance.
"I completely and absolutely disagree and reject the results of this evaluation," Murano said. "Dr. McKinney's evaluation of my performance is extremely far removed from the facts of my performance."
Murano addressed many of the McKinney's ratings individually, stating her evidence as to why they were undeserved.
"Especially troubling, and absolutely inaccurate, is his rating of '2' in terms of my ability to motivate people," Murano said, "especially given the tremendous turn-around in the morale of the faculty and staff from where it was a year ago during the controversy surrounding the search process for president."
She also explains the meaning of such low ratings, and is personally affronted by some of the implications of the ratings, including McKinney's rating of a 2 for honesty and integrity.
"Only a president who is deceitful, malicious, or who is known to break rules or even the law would rate this low on these very important character traits," Murano said. "Such a low rating regarding my honesty and integrity goes beyond the pale and I consider personally insulting. This rating besmirches my character in a way that I vehemently disagree with."
Murano lists multiple people who can vouch for her integrity and honesty, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush.
"Given the complete disconnection between Dr. McKinney's perception of my performance and all the evidence to the contrary," Murano said, "I can only conclude that this review was not based on facts."
The review, which came out in February, was preceded by a self-evaluation from Murano in which she rated herself highly, and extensively listed her achievements of the year.
McKinney applauds Murano's Aggie Assurance scholarship program, and her management of the Hurricane Ike crisis and move of the Galveston students. He is disparaging of her elsewhere, however.
"[Murano] fails to assume responsibility for decisions," McKinney said. "Should work WITH Faculty not FOR."
McKinney said Murano does a good job on things she likes but is very poor on carrying out decisions with which she disagrees.
Murano, however, said that being a team player requires that each team member have the freedom to point out potential problems, and even disagree with the direction that the team leader wants to go.
"However, being a team player also means that once decisions are made, everyone moves forward together," Murano said. "As evidence of my being a team player, there have been several initiatives that I have disagreed with. However, after voicing my opinion as a member of the team, once the final decision was made by the Board, I have abided with the decision."
After Murano sent her rebuttal to the Board of Regents, she received a reply from Board member Gene Stallings, questioning her decision to share her arguments regarding the performance review with the board, rather than keeping it strictly between McKinney and her.
"I must admit I was surprised that you set a copy to all nine regents," Stallings said. "Would it not be more appropriate for your remarks and questions to be made privately to Dr. McKinney? He then could present his evaluation and your remarks to the Board."
Stallings said that he understands the challenges Murano faced her first year as president, but that a good working relationship between the presidents and chancellor is a must.
"We understand that it is the responsibility of the Presidents to report to the Chancellor," Stallings said, "and we remember it was Dr. McKinney who recommended you to the Board to be the President of Texas A&M University."
The following are the PDFs of the three documents:
1. Murano's evaluation
2. Murano's response
3. Stallings letter.
Annual performance reviews are required of all Texas A&M employees, usually filed by May 31. Murano said that it was her understanding that the review was done out of cycle at the request of the Board of Regents. The review was filed February 9.
McKinney rated Murano's performance on a wide variety of areas, from management to communication skills to personal attributes, grading her on a scale from one to five - 1 being poor and 5 excellent.
The majority of McKinney's ratings were 2's and 3's; however, Murano received a 1 on "follow through," "acting decisively and timely" and "team player," and a 4 on "focus on organizational mission," "crisis management" and "relationship with colleagues and professional associations."
In response to her evaluation, Murano sent a letter to McKinney and all nine members of the Board of Regents, directly refuting the contents of the evaluation and defending her job performance.
"I completely and absolutely disagree and reject the results of this evaluation," Murano said. "Dr. McKinney's evaluation of my performance is extremely far removed from the facts of my performance."
Murano addressed many of the McKinney's ratings individually, stating her evidence as to why they were undeserved.
"Especially troubling, and absolutely inaccurate, is his rating of '2' in terms of my ability to motivate people," Murano said, "especially given the tremendous turn-around in the morale of the faculty and staff from where it was a year ago during the controversy surrounding the search process for president."
She also explains the meaning of such low ratings, and is personally affronted by some of the implications of the ratings, including McKinney's rating of a 2 for honesty and integrity.
"Only a president who is deceitful, malicious, or who is known to break rules or even the law would rate this low on these very important character traits," Murano said. "Such a low rating regarding my honesty and integrity goes beyond the pale and I consider personally insulting. This rating besmirches my character in a way that I vehemently disagree with."
Murano lists multiple people who can vouch for her integrity and honesty, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush.
"Given the complete disconnection between Dr. McKinney's perception of my performance and all the evidence to the contrary," Murano said, "I can only conclude that this review was not based on facts."
The review, which came out in February, was preceded by a self-evaluation from Murano in which she rated herself highly, and extensively listed her achievements of the year.
McKinney applauds Murano's Aggie Assurance scholarship program, and her management of the Hurricane Ike crisis and move of the Galveston students. He is disparaging of her elsewhere, however.
"[Murano] fails to assume responsibility for decisions," McKinney said. "Should work WITH Faculty not FOR."
McKinney said Murano does a good job on things she likes but is very poor on carrying out decisions with which she disagrees.
Murano, however, said that being a team player requires that each team member have the freedom to point out potential problems, and even disagree with the direction that the team leader wants to go.
"However, being a team player also means that once decisions are made, everyone moves forward together," Murano said. "As evidence of my being a team player, there have been several initiatives that I have disagreed with. However, after voicing my opinion as a member of the team, once the final decision was made by the Board, I have abided with the decision."
After Murano sent her rebuttal to the Board of Regents, she received a reply from Board member Gene Stallings, questioning her decision to share her arguments regarding the performance review with the board, rather than keeping it strictly between McKinney and her.
"I must admit I was surprised that you set a copy to all nine regents," Stallings said. "Would it not be more appropriate for your remarks and questions to be made privately to Dr. McKinney? He then could present his evaluation and your remarks to the Board."
Stallings said that he understands the challenges Murano faced her first year as president, but that a good working relationship between the presidents and chancellor is a must.
"We understand that it is the responsibility of the Presidents to report to the Chancellor," Stallings said, "and we remember it was Dr. McKinney who recommended you to the Board to be the President of Texas A&M University."
The following are the PDFs of the three documents:
1. Murano's evaluation
2. Murano's response
3. Stallings letter.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com