Issues concerning administrator evaluation at the University of Toledo, including internal political realities and the need to incorporate qualitative dimensions, were evaluated. The overall framework for the analysis of administrator evaluation at Toledo was based on the political model of J. Victor Baldridge (1971), complemented by Bacharach and Lawler's (1980) discussion of politics and power, and by Pirsig's (1974) concept of quality. Baldridge's posits five points of analysis: social structure or context, interest articulation processes, legislative transformation, policy outcomes, and policy executions. Based on a description of the activities of the university's faculty senate and the administration in regard to administrator evaluation, it is suggested that neither the administration nor the faculty senate wanted to pursue administration evaluation as part of a general institutional commitment to uniform assessment. The social structure at the University of Toledo is complex and under stress, and the process of interest articulation was inhibited by antagonism in the institution's social structure. Economic issues, especially the related issues of collective bargaining and differential salaries, were largely responsible for the antagonism. Committee members who negotiated about which interests would be translated into policies had very limited power. It is suggested that the efforts to consider a policy for administrator evaluation were preliminary stages that did not result in policy development or execution. There was also a failure to come to terms with, or achieve consensus about, the issue of quality. A bibliography is appended. (SW)