Gatekeeping within the university

[Morris Zapp]

We have a new department chairman.  We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university.  Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see.  If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us.  What is this?  Severe personality disorder?  Something that's common somewhere else?  I don't think I have encountered anything quite like this in a university before.  It feels disrespectful to the faculty, many of whom have been working at the uni for several years.  It seems like a violation of faculty governance or something -- but is it really?  It feels as though we have all been demoted and it sure as hell doesn't feel 'collegial'.  Any thoughts?

[ciao_yall]

We have a new department chairman.  We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university.  Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see.  If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us.  What is this?  Severe personality disorder?  Something that's common somewhere else?  I don't think I have encountered anything quite like this in a university before.  It feels disrespectful to the faculty, many of whom have been working at the uni for several years.  It seems like a violation of faculty governance or something -- but is it really?  It feels as though we have all been demoted and it sure as hell doesn't feel 'collegial'.  Any thoughts?

Her name isn't Edith Wilson, is it?

[Morris Zapp]

It would be funny except that it isn't.  Do we merely need to accept this?  Is this the sort of thing you would bring up with HR?  The secretary is now tasking us with things and demanding that we send them to her by specific dates. 

[downer]

You need to remain on the admin assistant's good side. Gifting them something sweet and/or alcoholic is in order.

If it is a big dept I can see the appeal of the policy for the chair. But it is ridiculous.

I'd imagine the dept would soon get together and rule this policy out of order. The chair is not a king.

I might well tell the secretary to tell the chair not to email me personally.

[Hibush]

In some places, a senior professor sits the new chair down and tells them how things are going to be. Things run a lot smoother once the limited power of the chair is clear to everyone.

[dismalist]

Coincidentally, my wife,  a doctor in a hospital, was confronted with what I think is an efficient version of this. Apparently everybody and his brother and sister complained by e-mail to the new boss that they wanted more money, less work, more underlings -- the lot. So, at a monthly meeting the new boss said to everybody: I'm doing such and such about salaries, full stop. Do not e-mail me about this anymore. I will not read such e-mails.[/b]

Not knowing the facts here, I have two opposite reactions, both of which could be correct:

1. The new boss is a fool for having someone filter the information s/he gets.

2. The e-mailers are fools for making absurd demands.

[Parasaurolophus]

Who's paying the assistant? Those aren't normal admin assistant duties. It sounds like a ton of extra work. Does it violate union provisions?

[mamselle]

It's not unusual for upper-level EAs to have such an arrangement with their bosses.

Some have ALL the boss' emails forwarded directly to them, they administer the inbox, etc, only forwarding back what passes triage, and no-one but they and their boss knows. Some never see the boss' emails before the boss does, but they are opened, read, and forwarded to be worked on as requested--or any array in between. I've worked for people with all those possibilities.

It may not appear to an outside viewer to be the most efficient or friendly, but in fact that's the only way to function if you have an exec with an email box that blows up in the hundreds every day, and they have to travel, or be in meetings all day, or whatever....

I'm just now dealing with a nutty payment problem from the job I'm trying to leave (was supposed to be done at the end of December, ahem) because my former boss either didn't get or deleted some timesheets that they were supposed to pay on until the bank account is transferred over to the new person, because theirs is the only valid signature on the checks until then.

The timesheets have someone else's name on them, the former boss didn't pay on them but also didn't tell me, and since I didn't get the materials in question, I didn't know to follow up further until the new people started (today) complaining about not being paid.

Limiting payment stuff to one person--the assistant--who just goes and gets the boss' approval for the payment or hands/emails them only the timesheets to pay on would make that work efficiently. Sending it to two people at different times, or just one, and having mixed follow-up, has made it a mess.

Perhaps the new person has dealt with issues like this and has figured out this is the way things work out best for them.

It makes a lot of sense to me, although usually it's done on the QT because, optics.

M.

[Puget]

Forbidding people to email the chair at all seems weird, but it's perfectly normal for a lot of admin tasks to run through the admin person rather than the chair, including the admin asking faculty for stuff by deadlines-- our department manager asks us for stuff all the time, that's part of his job.

[pgher]

I'm surprised to have a department chair do that, but most of our senior leaders here have two addresses: their personal address and something like chancellor@myuni.edu. There's an understanding that the personal address is used sparingly, and only for truly personal communication.

[polly_mer]

Mamselle's post is how things normally run at high enough level to have a personal.assistant for the reason she mentions.

It's normal enough even at the departmental.level to have multiple emails as pgher mentions: one for the assistants to triage for standard requests and one personal direct to the chair for non-departmental needs.

The questions are whether the assistant really knows how to triage and whether the chair needs the level of triage that the assistant is providing.

[kaysixteen]

Hmmm... if all emails for His Majesty the Chair need to be shepherded by his secretary, does this also mean His minions, the faculty, are not welcome to knock on his door?   Do they need to acquire an appointment from the sec?

[clean]

We have a new department chairman.  We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university.  Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see.  If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us.

The secretary is now tasking us with things and demanding that we send them to her by specific dates.

Why am I tempted to CC the Dean on all emails from the admin assistant forbidding communication with the chair?  This is either evidence of someone overstepping or someone abandoning their areas of responsibility.
Any request from the secretary 'tasking' me would surely go to the dean for confirmation.  I may even comply with the deadlines, but send the work to the Dean and a separate note that the work can be obtained from the Dean.  I would also request that the Dean update the organizational chart showing the Administrative Assistant's proper place in the chain of command.

In all seriousness,  IF you have a University Ombuds, I would absolutely communicate my displeasure with the situation.  This can be done anonymously, and would surely be brought to the attention of the Dean, and perhaps the provost.

[mamselle]

If you did that to one of the people I worked for, they'd probably never recommend you for anything again...except maybe the parking lot committee.

They might even tell you to get over yourself.

It's a mode of surviving and getting things done, and it's not all that unheard of.

I'd think carefully.

M. 

[clean]

If you did that to one of the people I worked for, they'd probably never recommend you for anything again...except maybe the parking lot committee.

Im a tenured full professor, planning (maybe hoping) to retire by the end of 2024.  I have plenty of service under my belt, and frankly, I dont think that I need to be recommended for anything else.

IF this Admin. Ass.'s  actions are reflections of and supported by the admincritters in charge, then I think that I would redouble my efforts to ensure that I am able to retire at that date.  My willingness to retire would be assured! 

So my advice to involve the Ombuds IS the real advice. The prior part of the reply was simply reflecting my condolences to the OP.