The large research university in Southern California has opened a search for Campus Ombudsperson and Director of Ombuds Services. The search will fill a position held on an interim basis by Thomas Griffin since June 2022. Other members of the office currently include Brenda Woods-Patin, Natalie Gibson, and Ariella Morrison. The full-time, hybrid eligible position reports as part of the Chancellor's office and practices to IOA standards.
Applicants must have a Bachelor's Degree and significant work experience. A advanced degree is preferred. "Priority consideration will be given to active UC employees from any UC location or UCLA preferential rehires. External applicants may be considered if the applicant pool is not sufficient." The salary range for the position is $112,900 to $256,900 per year and applications are due by February 15, 2025. (UCLA Jobs.)
This could be viewed as the antithesis of the outsourced Staff Ombuds Office at Berkeley. Ucla wants someone so deeply knowledgeable about the UC system and campus culture that it almost made this an internal posting.
I understand the value of someone who is experienced in the system, but in my opinion this type of thinking feels counter to the inclusive and equitable ideals an Ombuds in the role would be working so hard to promote.
I would far rather UCLA be clear sighted about what they are looking for in a candidate and transparent about their priorities in the hiring process than pretend to be neutral when they aren’t.
UC ombuds are under attack. This much is true after what happened to the Berkeley staff ombuds position. The idea that UC ombuds in general, or UCLA (campus and OO) in particular are well served by artifically limiting the pool to UC personnel is laughable. Cast a wide net. If it results in candidates from within the UC system being the best candidates, great! If not, where is the institutional benefit in craating a suboptimal candidate pool?
The application deadline has been extended a week to 2/22, which suggests they are not getting an adequate internal pool. I agree with concerns that the pool should be wider, but would encourage well-qualified candidates with relevant experience to apply nonetheless. I can't imagine that they will get a broad and diverse enough applicant pool from just the UCs.
Keeping someone in an interim leadership role for over 2.5 years is excessively long (clearly not interim) and unfair to both the incumbent and other potential applicants. UCLA should either formally promote the interim leader to provide stability and recognition or conduct a truly open hiring process to ensure fairness for all candidates.
What a sham process. How does one justify excluding external candidates from the initial review? What a joke.
ReplyDeleteThis could be viewed as the antithesis of the outsourced Staff Ombuds Office at Berkeley. Ucla wants someone so deeply knowledgeable about the UC system and campus culture that it almost made this an internal posting.
DeleteI understand the value of someone who is experienced in the system, but in my opinion this type of thinking feels counter to the inclusive and equitable ideals an Ombuds in the role would be working so hard to promote.
ReplyDeleteI would far rather UCLA be clear sighted about what they are looking for in a candidate and transparent about their priorities in the hiring process than pretend to be neutral when they aren’t.
ReplyDeleteUC ombuds are under attack. This much is true after what happened to the Berkeley staff ombuds position. The idea that UC ombuds in general, or UCLA (campus and OO) in particular are well served by artifically limiting the pool to UC personnel is laughable. Cast a wide net. If it results in candidates from within the UC system being the best candidates, great! If not, where is the institutional benefit in craating a suboptimal candidate pool?
ReplyDeleteThe application deadline has been extended a week to 2/22, which suggests they are not getting an adequate internal pool. I agree with concerns that the pool should be wider, but would encourage well-qualified candidates with relevant experience to apply nonetheless. I can't imagine that they will get a broad and diverse enough applicant pool from just the UCs.
ReplyDeleteKeeping someone in an interim leadership role for over 2.5 years is excessively long (clearly not interim) and unfair to both the incumbent and other potential applicants. UCLA should either formally promote the interim leader to provide stability and recognition or conduct a truly open hiring process to ensure fairness for all candidates.
ReplyDelete