Results of 2009-10 Faculty Assessment of Administrators

The following data present the results of the faculty assessment of administrators conducted at the end of the 2009-2010 academic year by UFF/FAU. This survey is an annual event intended to promote good leadership by providing administrators with regular, systematic feedback and by providing faculty with information about how administrators are doing. Administrators’ absolute scores are probably less useful than their position relative to others. For example, the tables do provide a useful comparison of how deans make personnel and salary decisions as perceived by the faculty. This year’s survey also included the Dean of the Graduate College and the Dean of Undergraduate Studies.

UFF also surveyed faculty with open-ended questions (“The university would be better served if…”). Because of the forthright nature of some of these written comments, they will only be made available in a password-protected area of the UFF-FAU website. The password will be distributed to faculty upon release of the survey results.

The total number of 2009-10 electronic surveys completed was 175. The results appear below in alphabetical order based on the administrator’s college affiliation. Upper-level administrators without a college affiliation appear toward the end of the page.

Rosalyn Carter – Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs
Manjunath Pendakur – Arts & Letters
Michael Friedland – Biomedical Science
J. Dennis Coates – Business
Valerie Bristor – Education
Karl Stevens – Engineering and Computer Science
Jeffrey Buller – Honors College
Anne Boykin – Nursing
Gary Perry – Science
William Miller – University Libraries
Barry Rosson – Graduate College
Edward Pratt – Undergraduate College
Joyanne Stephens – Regional Campuses
Diane Alperin – Interim Provost
John Pritchett – Interim President


Rosalyn Carter
Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs

Dean ROSALYN CARTER consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
2 22% 5‐Strongly Agree
3 33% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
2 22% 2‐Disagree
2 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
1 11% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 44% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
2 22% 2‐Disagree
2 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
1 11% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 22% 4‐Agree
1 11% 3‐Neutral
2 22% 2‐Disagree
3 33% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
2 22% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 11% 4‐Agree
2 22% 3‐Neutral
3 33% 2‐Disagree
1 11% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER distributes discretionary money fairly.
1 11% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 11% 4‐Agree
2 22% 3‐Neutral
2 22% 2‐Disagree
2 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 11% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER is a good administrator.
1 11% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 22% 4‐Agree
1 11% 3‐Neutral
3 33% 2‐Disagree
2 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean CARTER is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
4 44% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 22% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
1 11% 2‐Disagree
2 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean CARTER is:
3 33% 5‐Excellent
0 0% 4‐Above Average
2 22% 3‐Average
2 22% 2‐Below Average
2 22% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Manjunath Pendakur
Arts & Letters

Dean MANJUNATH PENDAKUR consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
5 8% 5‐Strongly Agree
11 18% 4‐Agree
2 3% 3‐Neutral
8 13% 2‐Disagree
32 53% 1‐Strongly Disagree
2 3% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
8 13% 5‐Strongly Agree
15 25% 4‐Agree
13 22% 3‐Neutral
8 13% 2‐Disagree
14 23% 1‐Strongly Disagree
2 3% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
8 13% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 7% 4‐Agree
5 8% 3‐Neutral
11 18% 2‐Disagree
29 48% 1‐Strongly Disagree
3 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
5 9% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 3% 4‐Agree
12 21% 3‐Neutral
8 14% 2‐Disagree
26 45% 1‐Strongly Disagree
5 9% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR distributes discretionary money fairly.
4 7% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 8% 4‐Agree
9 15% 3‐Neutral
8 13% 2‐Disagree
20 33% 1‐Strongly Disagree
14 23% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR is a good administrator.
7 12% 5‐Strongly Agree
9 15% 4‐Agree
7 12% 3‐Neutral
8 14% 2‐Disagree
27 46% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 2% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PENDAKUR is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
9 15% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 8% 4‐Agree
13 22% 3‐Neutral
5 8% 2‐Disagree
24 41% 1‐Strongly Disagree
3 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean PENDAKUR is:
8 13% 5‐Excellent
7 12% 4‐Above Average
9 15% 3‐Average
6 10% 2‐Below Average
29 48% 1‐Poor
1 2% 0‐Do Not Know

Michael Friedland
Biomedical Science

Dean MICHAEL FRIEDLAND consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
1 50% 2‐Disagree
1 50% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 100% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
1 50% 2‐Disagree
1 50% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 100% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND distributes discretionary money fairly.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 100% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND is a good administrator.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 100% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean FRIEDLAND is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 100% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean FRIEDLAND is:
0 0% 5‐Excellent
0 0% 4‐Above Average
0 0% 3‐Average
0 0% 2‐Below Average
2 100% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

J. Dennis Coates
Business

Dean J. DENNIS COATES consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
6 29% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 19% 4‐Agree
3 14% 3‐Neutral
5 24% 2‐Disagree
3 14% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
8 38% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 24% 4‐Agree
3 14% 3‐Neutral
4 19% 2‐Disagree
1 5% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
7 35% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 25% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
3 15% 2‐Disagree
5 25% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
8 40% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 20% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
5 25% 2‐Disagree
1 5% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES distributes discretionary money fairly.
10 48% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
1 5% 2‐Disagree
5 24% 1‐Strongly Disagree
3 14% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES is a good administrator.
9 45% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 20% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
1 5% 2‐Disagree
4 20% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean COATES is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
8 38% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 24% 4‐Agree
4 19% 3‐Neutral
3 14% 2‐Disagree
1 5% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean COATES is:
8 38% 5‐Excellent
4 19% 4‐Above Average
3 14% 3‐Average
1 5% 2‐Below Average
5 24% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Valerie Bristor
Education

Dean VALERIE BRISTOR consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
6 25% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 21% 4‐Agree
5 21% 3‐Neutral
5 21% 2‐Disagree
3 13% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
5 21% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 21% 4‐Agree
6 25% 3‐Neutral
3 13% 2‐Disagree
5 21% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
8 33% 5‐Strongly Agree
7 29% 4‐Agree
3 13% 3‐Neutral
2 8% 2‐Disagree
4 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
7 29% 5‐Strongly Agree
8 33% 4‐Agree
2 8% 3‐Neutral
4 17% 2‐Disagree
2 8% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 4% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR distributes discretionary money fairly.
5 21% 5‐Strongly Agree
6 25% 4‐Agree
3 13% 3‐Neutral
1 4% 2‐Disagree
4 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
5 21% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR is a good administrator.
7 29% 5‐Strongly Agree
6 25% 4‐Agree
3 13% 3‐Neutral
4 17% 2‐Disagree
4 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BRISTOR is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
8 33% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 8% 4‐Agree
5 21% 3‐Neutral
4 17% 2‐Disagree
5 21% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean BRISTOR is:
7 29% 5‐Excellent
2 8% 4‐Above Average
7 29% 3‐Average
3 13% 2‐Below Average
5 21% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Karl Stevens
Engineering and Computer Science

Dean KARL STEVENS consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
1 5% 2‐Disagree
18 86% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
1 5% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 11% 4‐Agree
3 16% 3‐Neutral
4 21% 2‐Disagree
9 47% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
1 5% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
4 20% 2‐Disagree
13 65% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 10% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
4 19% 2‐Disagree
14 67% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS distributes discretionary money fairly.
2 10% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
3 15% 3‐Neutral
4 20% 2‐Disagree
9 45% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS is a good administrator.
1 5% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
5 25% 2‐Disagree
12 60% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean STEVENS is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
1 5% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
4 20% 3‐Neutral
3 15% 2‐Disagree
12 60% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean STEVENS is:
1 5% 5‐Excellent
1 5% 4‐Above Average
1 5% 3‐Average
5 24% 2‐Below Average
13 62% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Jeffrey Buller
Honors College

Dean JEFFREY BULLER consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 63% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
2 25% 2‐Disagree
1 13% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
2 25% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 50% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
1 13% 2‐Disagree
1 13% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 57% 4‐Agree
1 14% 3‐Neutral
2 29% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
2 25% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 50% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 25% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER distributes discretionary money fairly.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 50% 4‐Agree
2 25% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
1 13% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 13% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER is a good administrator.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 25% 4‐Agree
3 38% 3‐Neutral
1 13% 2‐Disagree
2 25% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BULLER is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
2 25% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 25% 4‐Agree
2 25% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 25% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean BULLER is:
0 0% 5‐Excellent
4 50% 4‐Above Average
2 25% 3‐Average
0 0% 2‐Below Average
2 25% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Anne Boykin
Nursing

Dean ANNE BOYKIN consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
6 55% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 18% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
1 9% 2‐Disagree
2 18% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
7 64% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 18% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 18% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
6 55% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 18% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
2 18% 2‐Disagree
1 9% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
5 50% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 20% 4‐Agree
1 10% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 20% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN distributes discretionary money fairly.
4 36% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 18% 4‐Agree
2 18% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
2 18% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 9% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN is a good administrator.
7 70% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 10% 4‐Agree
1 10% 3‐Neutral
1 10% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean BOYKIN is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
7 64% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 18% 4‐Agree
2 18% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean BOYKIN is:
7 64% 5‐Excellent
1 9% 4‐Above Average
1 9% 3‐Average
0 0% 2‐Below Average
2 18% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Gary Perry
Science

Dean GARY PERRY consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
6 30% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 25% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
4 20% 2‐Disagree
3 15% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
11 55% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 5% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
4 20% 2‐Disagree
2 10% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
7 35% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 25% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
1 5% 2‐Disagree
5 25% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
6 32% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 11% 4‐Agree
4 21% 3‐Neutral
2 11% 2‐Disagree
4 21% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY distributes discretionary money fairly.
6 32% 5‐Strongly Agree
5 26% 4‐Agree
1 5% 3‐Neutral
3 16% 2‐Disagree
3 16% 1‐Strongly Disagree
1 5% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY is a good administrator.
8 40% 5‐Strongly Agree
4 20% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
5 25% 2‐Disagree
1 5% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PERRY is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
10 50% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 10% 4‐Agree
2 10% 3‐Neutral
2 10% 2‐Disagree
4 20% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean PERRY is:
7 33% 5‐Excellent
6 29% 4‐Above Average
2 10% 3‐Average
3 14% 2‐Below Average
3 14% 1‐Poor
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

William Miller
University Libraries

Dean WILLIAM MILLER consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
1 17% 3‐Neutral
2 33% 2‐Disagree
2 33% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 33% 4‐Agree
3 50% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
0 0% 4‐Agree
1 17% 3‐Neutral
4 67% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
0 0% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 17% 4‐Agree
2 33% 3‐Neutral
2 33% 2‐Disagree
1 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER distributes discretionary money fairly.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
1 17% 4‐Agree
0 0% 3‐Neutral
3 50% 2‐Disagree
1 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER is a good administrator.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
2 33% 4‐Agree
2 33% 3‐Neutral
1 17% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean MILLER is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
1 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
3 50% 4‐Agree
2 33% 3‐Neutral
0 0% 2‐Disagree
0 0% 1‐Strongly Disagree
0 0% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean MILLER is:
1 17% 5‐Excellent
1 17% 4‐Above Average
3 50% 3‐Average
0 0% 2‐Below Average
0 0% 1‐Poor
1 17% 0‐Do Not Know

Barry Rosson
Graduate College

Graduate College Dean BARRY ROSSON consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
9 6% 5‐Strongly Agree
20 13% 4‐Agree
28 19% 3‐Neutral
16 11% 2‐Disagree
28 19% 1‐Strongly Disagree
50 33% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean ROSSON upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
14 9% 5‐Strongly Agree
34 23% 4‐Agree
18 12% 3‐Neutral
12 8% 2‐Disagree
25 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
47 31% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean ROSSON uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
5 3% 5‐Strongly Agree
24 16% 4‐Agree
26 18% 3‐Neutral
17 11% 2‐Disagree
23 16% 1‐Strongly Disagree
53 36% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean ROSSON is a good administrator.
7 5% 5‐Strongly Agree
25 17% 4‐Agree
23 16% 3‐Neutral
17 12% 2‐Disagree
24 16% 1‐Strongly Disagree
50 34% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean ROSSON effectively leads University Graduate education programs and faculty.
9 6% 5‐Strongly Agree
26 17% 4‐Agree
24 16% 3‐Neutral
15 10% 2‐Disagree
26 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
49 33% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean ROSSON competently administers Graduate College operations.
9 6% 5‐Strongly Agree
31 21% 4‐Agree
19 13% 3‐Neutral
15 10% 2‐Disagree
25 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
52 34% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Dean ROSSON is:
11 7% 5‐Excellent
21 14% 4‐Above Average
23 15% 3‐Average
18 12% 2‐Below Average
28 18% 1‐Poor
52 34% 0‐Do Not Know

Edward Pratt
Undergraduate College

Undergraduate Studies Dean EDWARD PRATT consults faculty/staff before making important decisions
20 14% 5‐Strongly Agree
35 24% 4‐Agree
20 14% 3‐Neutral
6 4% 2‐Disagree
10 7% 1‐Strongly Disagree
53 37% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PRATT upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
25 18% 5‐Strongly Agree
30 21% 4‐Agree
18 13% 3‐Neutral
7 5% 2‐Disagree
10 7% 1‐Strongly Disagree
51 36% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PRATT uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
21 15% 5‐Strongly Agree
27 19% 4‐Agree
23 16% 3‐Neutral
6 4% 2‐Disagree
8 6% 1‐Strongly Disagree
55 39% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PRATT is a good administrator.
21 15% 5‐Strongly Agree
30 21% 4‐Agree
23 16% 3‐Neutral
7 5% 2‐Disagree
9 6% 1‐Strongly Disagree
50 36% 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PRATT effectively leads undergraduate programs and faculty.
23 16 5‐Strongly Agree
29 21 4‐Agree
22 16 3‐Neutral
7 5 2‐Disagree
10 7 1‐Strongly Disagree
49 35 0‐Do Not Know

Dean PRATT competently administers Undergraduate Studies operations.
24 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
21 15% 4‐Agree
26 18% 3‐Neutral
5 4% 2‐Disagree
10 7% 1‐Strongly Disagree
55 39% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall Dean PRATT is:
25 17% 5‐Excellent
32 22% 4‐Above Average
21 14% 3‐Average
7 5% 2‐Below Average
8 5% 1‐Poor
53 36% 0‐Do Not Know

Joyanne Stephens
Regional Campuses

Vice President for Regional Campuses Joyanne STEPHENS is a good administrator.
7 13% 5‐Strongly Agree
10 19% 4‐Agree
8 15% 3‐Neutral
5 9% 2‐Disagree
4 7% 1‐Strongly Disagree
20 37% 0‐Do Not Know

Vice President STEPHENS uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
3 6% 5‐Strongly Agree
11 21% 4‐Agree
9 17% 3‐Neutral
5 10% 2‐Disagree
3 6% 1‐Strongly Disagree
21 40% 0‐Do Not Know

Vice President STEPHENS keeps faculty informed about decisions.
2 4% 5‐Strongly Agree
14 27% 4‐Agree
5 10% 3‐Neutral
9 18% 2‐Disagree
10 20% 1‐Strongly Disagree
11 22% 0‐Do Not Know

Vice President STEPHENS ensures that campus fiscal resources are appropriately allotted and expended.
6 12% 5‐Strongly Agree
9 18% 4‐Agree
5 10% 3‐Neutral
4 8% 2‐Disagree
4 8% 1‐Strongly Disagree
23 45% 0‐Do Not Know

Vice President STEPHENS is competent in overseeing daily campus operations
7 14% 5‐Strongly Agree
9 18% 4‐Agree
6 12% 3‐Neutral
4 8% 2‐Disagree
6 12% 1‐Strongly Disagree
19 37% 0‐Do Not Know

Vice President STEPHENS is an effective leader who promotes the development of the campus.
5 10% 5‐Strongly Agree
7 14% 4‐Agree
7 14% 3‐Neutral
5 10% 2‐Disagree
8 16% 1‐Strongly Disagree
17 35% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Vice President STEPHENS is:
8 16% 5‐Excellent
9 18% 4‐Above Average
6 12% 3‐Average
6 12% 2‐Below Average
5 10% 1‐Poor
16 32% 0‐Do Not Know

Diane Alperin
Interim Provost

Interim Provost DIANE ALPERIN is a good administrator.
32 19% 5‐Strongly Agree
42 24% 4‐Agree
29 17% 3‐Neutral
16 9% 2‐Disagree
31 18% 1‐Strongly Disagree
22 13% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim Provost ALPERIN uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.
20 12% 5‐Strongly Agree
41 24% 4‐Agree
28 17% 3‐Neutral
19 11% 2‐Disagree
33 20% 1‐Strongly Disagree
27 16% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim Provost ALPERIN keeps faculty informed about decisions.
22 13% 5‐Strongly Agree
50 30% 4‐Agree
29 17% 3‐Neutral
20 12% 2‐Disagree
28 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
20 12% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim Provost ALPERIN makes sure that Vice‐Presidents and Deans make fair decisions.
15 9% 5‐Strongly Agree
28 17% 4‐Agree
29 17% 3‐Neutral
24 14% 2‐Disagree
37 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
35 21% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim Provost ALPERIN upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
25 15% 5‐Strongly Agree
50 30% 4‐Agree
27 16% 3‐Neutral
12 7% 2‐Disagree
33 19% 1‐Strongly Disagree
22 13% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim Provost ALPERIN is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.
23 14% 5‐Strongly Agree
43 25% 4‐Agree
28 17% 3‐Neutral
10 6% 2‐Disagree
37 22% 1‐Strongly Disagree
28 17% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Interim Provost ALPERIN is:
24 14% 5‐Excellent
39 23% 4‐Above Average
36 21% 3‐Average
14 8% 2‐Below Average
35 20% 1‐Poor
24 14% 0‐Do Not Know

John Pritchett
Interim President

Interim President JOHN PRITCHET makes sure that administrators make decisions fairly and in the best
interests of the university.
29 16% 5‐Strongly Agree
41 23% 4‐Agree
28 16% 3‐Neutral
23 13% 2‐Disagree
38 21% 1‐Strongly Disagree
19 11% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim President PRITCHETT makes decisions that are in the best interests of the faculty and
professional staff.
26 15% 5‐Strongly Agree
45 26% 4‐Agree
29 17% 3‐Neutral
20 11% 2‐Disagree
37 21% 1‐Strongly Disagree
18 10% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim President PRITCHETT upholds academic standards and encourages a scholarly atmosphere.
37 21% 5‐Strongly Agree
53 30% 4‐Agree
28 16% 3‐Neutral
12 7% 2‐Disagree
30 17% 1‐Strongly Disagree
18 10% 0‐Do Not Know

Interim President PRITCHETT is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.
30 17% 5‐Strongly Agree
47 27% 4‐Agree
33 19% 3‐Neutral
17 10% 2‐Disagree
32 18% 1‐Strongly Disagree
18 10% 0‐Do Not Know

Overall, Interim President PRITCHETT is:
30 17% 5‐Excellent
44 24% 4‐Above Average
43 24% 3‐Average
17 9% 2‐Below Average
30 17% 1‐Poor
16 9% 0‐Do Not Know

UFF-FAU 2009-10 Assessment of Administrators Is Here!

March 31, 2010. Survey now being conducted electronically, Results to be circulated before end of the spring term.

The UFF-FAU Annual Assessment of Administrators Survey is now online and open for YOUR input. This is a password-protected webpage and if you are a Bargaining Unit member you should have received an email on March 29 with the above link and the password to access the site. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A DUES-PAYING UFF-FAU MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE.

If you have not received this email, are a Bargaining Unit member, and would like to participate please contact UFF-FAU President James Tracy at president(at)uff-fau.org.

Data collection will conclude on April 12.

FAU College of Engineering Reorganization Survey Results

engineering_surveyresults1(Excel Document)

In October UFF-FAU conducted a survey of faculty members in the College of Engineering to assess their concerns regarding the reorganization of the College of Engineering. Of 78 Engineering faculty approached, 43 opted to take the survey. Overall, the survey suggests the faculty’s dislike of the reorganization and the way in which it was carried out by COE Dean Karl Stevens and FAU’s top academic officers.

Important Documents

Unless otherwise indicated, each of the entries below are links to a downloadable PDF document.

Florida Atlantic University Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010

Florida Atlantic University Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2009

Florida Atlantic University Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008

UFF-FAU Privacy Statement

NEA Attorney Referral Program List of Participating Attorneys

Know Your Weingarten Rights! (Blog Post w/PDF)

State of Florida Long Range Financial Outlook 2010-2011 through 2012-2013

  • “The Long-Range Financial Outlook (both critical needs and other high priority needs)
    includes increases in recurring general revenue spending for education of $1.3 billion
    (+11.5%) in Fiscal Year 2010-11; $2.1 billion (+16.5%) in Fiscal Year 2011-12; and
    $772.9 million (+5.3%) in Fiscal Year 2012-13 … The non-recurring State Fiscal Stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA stabilization funds) will be available to be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2010-11 from the Federal Grants Trust Fund. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2011-12, critical needs funding includes the restorationof non-recurring ARRA stabilization funds as recurring general revenue in the core instructional programs, including the Voluntary Prekindergarten Education Program, the Florida Education Finance Program, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, the Workforce Development Program, the Community College Program Fund, and State University Education and General Activities.” (64, 65)

Education Funding Summary 2009-10, Senate Education Pre-K-12 Education Committee, Senate Higher Education Appropriations Committee

  • Annual report of the Senate Committees on Education PreK-12 Appropriations and Higher Education Appropriations summarizing the recent legislative decisions affecting education funding.  The report also provides important summary information and perspective for leaders and planners who need information regarding state and district finances.

2006-2009 UFF-FAU/FAUBOT Collective Bargaining Agreement

Florida Atlantic University Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008

Review of the Annual Financial Audits of Florida Atlantic University

  • “Florida Atlantic University was in excellent shape financially as of June 30, 2008. Its Total Net Assets had increased from $400,795,247 as of June 30, 2003 to $709,653,731, of which $73,456,329 were Unrestricted Net Assets. In addition its component units had increased their Net Assets from $117,754,358 as of June 30, 2003 to $227,199,600 as of June 30, 2008, of which $14,610,718 were Unrestricted Net Assets” (10).

How is the Money Spent? FAU Expenditures on Higher Level Administration in the Period from 2001-02 to 2008-09

  • “If relative salary increases and relative growth in employment are accurate indicators of organizational priorities, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above figures is that the FAU administration values its own numerical and compensation growth more highly than it values growing the ranks or compensation of its faculty” (11).

Results of 2008-09 Assessment of Administrators (Blog Post)

Written Comments of UFF-FAU 2008-09 Assessment of FAU Administrators (Password Protected) (Blog Post)

UFF-FAU Impasse Hearing Presentation, Feb. 24 2009

Impasse Hearing Special Magistrate Report

  • “The projected cost for the FAU-BOT salary proposal is approximately $1.7 million. The projected cost of a 2.5% increase for the 2008-09 is about $1.9 million which should be considered the minimum salary increase  needed to keep the faculty salaries competitive in the labor market. That difference apparently can be taken from Clearwire funds” (6).

Why are FAU Faculty Salaries Falling So Far Behind Faculty Salaries at Our Peer Institutions?

UFF-FAU Chapter Constitution and Bylaws (Blog Post)

FAU Layoff Notice to College of Engineering Faculty Member

Results of UFF-FAU 2008-09 Assessment of Administrators

The following tables present the results of the faculty assessment of administrators conducted at the end of the 2008-2009 academic year by UFF/FAU. This survey is an annual event intended to promote good leadership by providing administrators with regular, systematic feedback and by providing faculty with information about how administrators are doing. Administrators’ absolute scores are probably less useful than their position relative to others. For example, the tables do provide a useful comparison of how deans make personnel and salary decisions as perceived by the faculty.

In order to increase the attention paid to the qualitative results of the evaluation, UFF also analyzed the responses to the open-ended question (“The university would be better served if…”). The analysis of these comments is included in this report. Because of the forthright nature of some written comments, they will only be made available in a password-protected area of the UFF-FAU website at www.uff-fau.org. The password will be made available to administrators and faculty upon release of the survey results.

The total number of 2008-09 questionnaires returned was 220.

TABLE ONE: DEANS/DIRECTORS

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE: 1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

ADMINISTRATOR

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

N=

Boykin, Anne (Nursing)

3.73

4.3

3.86

3.73

3.80

4.33

4.33

4.26

15

Bristor, Valerie (Education)

3.59

3.40

3.44

3.44

2.85

3.67

3.18

3.44

27

Buller, Jeffrey (Honors)

3.5

4.12

2.87

2.5

2.87

3.00

2.87

2.50

8

Carter, Rosalyn (CAUPA)

3.07

4.14

3.43

3.57

2.85

4.07

4.21

3.71

14

Coates, Dennis (Business)

2.95

3.59

2.63

2.36

2.59

3.40

3.54

3.18

22

Friedland, Michael (BioMed)

3.14

3.57

3.29

3.29

3.43

3.57

3.29

2.13

7

Miller, William (Library)

2.20

3.30

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.90

2.90

2.80

5

Pendakur, Manjunath (Arts & Letters)

2.73

3.48

2.22

2.20

2.78

3.24

2.80

2.50

55

Perry, Gary (Science)

3.46

3.92

3.32

2.60

2.36

3.03

3.89

3.59

29

Stevens, Karl (Engineering)

1.55

1.80

1.55

1.30

1.55

2.10

1.70

1.50

20

KEY TO TABLE ONE:

Question #1. Consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.

Question #2. Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

Question #3. Makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.

Question #4. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

Question #5. Distributes discretionary money fairly.

Question #6. Is a good administrator.

Question #7. Is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.

Question #8. OVERALL, the Dean/Director is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-7 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 8 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

TABLE TWO: PRESIDENT, PROVOST, AND VICE PRESIDENTS

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE: 1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

ADMINISTRATOR

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

N=

Brogan, Frank

1.92

1.73

2.09

2.46

2.19

205

Pritchett, John

2.71

2.45

2.68

1.97

2.78

2.70

2.65

202

McPherson, Gerri

1.42

1.14

1.38

1.43

1.57

1.43

1.52

21

Stephens, Joyanne

3.13

2.13

2.70

2.13

3.08

3.00

2.57

24

KEY TO TABLE TWO:

FOR THE PRESIDENT,

QUESTION #1. Makes sure that administrators make decisions fairly and in the best interests of the university.

QUESTION #2. Makes decisions that are in the best interests of the faculty and professional staff.

QUESTION #3. Upholds academic standards and encourages a scholarly atmosphere.

QUESTION #4. Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.

QUESTION #5. OVERALL, President Brogan is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-4 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 5 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

FOR THE PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENTS,

QUESTION #1. Is a good administrator.

QUESTION #2. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

QUESTION #3. Keeps faculty informed about decisions.

QUESTION #4. PROVOST: Makes sure that Vice Presidents and Deans make fair decisions.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Ensures that campus fiscal resources are appropriately allotted and expended.

QUESTION #5. PROVOST: Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Is competent in overseeing daily campus operations.

QUESTION #6. PROVOST: Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the campus.

QUESTION #7. OVERALL, the Provost/Vice President is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-6 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 7 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

Henderson School returns (N = 11):

TABLE: PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT DEAN

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE: 1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Hodge, Patricia (Principal)

2.90

2.80

2.81

2.90

3.27

2.73

2.90

2.60

Thomas, Glenn (Assistant Dean)

2.36

3.36

2.64

2.73

2.36

3.00

3.36

3.00

KEY TO TABLE ONE:

Question #1. Consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.

Question #2. Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

Question #3. Makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.

Question #4. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

Question #5. Principal: Makes sensible curriculum decisions.

Director: Distributes discretionary money fairly.

Question #6. Is a good administrator.

Question #7. Is an effective leader who promotes the school.

Question #8. OVERALL, the Principal/Director is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-7 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 8 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

ANALYSIS OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS

The UFF/FAU administrator assessment form for 2008-2009 included an open-ended question, “The university would be better served if…,” which provided an opportunity for faculty to comment on an administrator’s performance. There was space as well for additional comments. About two-fifths to half of those who responded to the open-ended question above provided remarks in the “Additional Comments” section. A summary of all the written comments is given below.

President Brogan:
Among the faculty who returned questionnaires, one hundred wrote comments on the University President in response to Question 4 and forty-one provided additional comments. Four of these respondents praise him more or less highly; five others compliment him mildly – a number of these, however, noting that with him as president the University has not prospered. A few comments touch upon the need for him to improve funding for the university through lobbying and fund-raising in order to enhance both research and instructional resources. 38 remarks call upon him to develop an awareness of academics and the academic environment by showing more respect for the faculty through pay raises and additional resources. Several comments expressed astonishment of the President’s disregard of the PERC Special Magistrate’s recommendation on the faculty salary compromise. Multiple comments criticize him for his lack of a doctorate, his focus on athletics (“football”) over academics, the failure to have a strong capital campaign, and other perceived shortcomings such as his background as a K-12 educator and politician. A total of 27 comments call for him to resign, be fired, or depart in some other fashion from the University.

Provost Pritchett:

Fifty-six faculty members responded to Question 8 on the questionnaires for Provost Pritchett and thirty four provided additional comments. Nine comments are complimentary, some particularly so. “
His administrative style reminds me of Harry Truman’s,” one faculty member gushes, “fair, no nonsense, do your homework, and be respectful of others.” Several say he is approachable. Of the rest, nineteen call for him to have greater contact with the faculty or complain that he has little contact and is out of touch with the faculty when he should be in their corner fighting for better salaries and money for research. Nine comments assert that he is too supportive of or deferential toward the deans versus faculty interests. Several comments urge him to learn more about what is going on in the colleges, and others report poor leadership in some colleges that is going unaddressed. Others assert that the Provost is exerting too much influence over what should be faculty decisions. Some state that the Provost is “dictatorial,” “totalitarian,” does not tolerate debate, and has to learn how to control his temper, referring to a particular outburst at a Faculty Senate meeting. A total of fourteen faculty comments call for the Provost to resign or be removed from his position.
Vice President McPherson (Northern Campuses):

There were eight responses to Question 8 for Vice President McPherson and ten Additional Comments provided. One was wholly positive, noting that she “hires good people” is “positive,” and should “be cloned and take all leadership positions.” Several others assert that they don’t know McPherson despite being regularly on campus, that she is seldom, if ever, on the northern campuses, that she does not communicate well with faculty, and recommend that the position be abolished as it is “redundant,” or “a complete waste of our resources.”

Vice President Stephens (Broward Campuses):

There were three responses to Question 8 for Vice President Stephens and six Additional Comments. Two comments are complimentary; several report not knowing who she is or what she does.
I have no idea who this person is—if that tells you anything.” Suggestions include communicating better with faculty so that she knows their concerns and can represent them. Another remark asks Stephens to “Respect faculty.”
Dean Boykin (College of Nursing):

Four faculty members responded to Question 9 for Dean Boykin and two provided Additional Comments. One asks for her to “continue” and another exclaims, “[S]he is the best dean I’ve ever worked with!” Another urges her to “respect faculty,” not just those who do her bidding. Another set of comments calls for better communication between administrators and senior faculty. One faculty member questioned Boykin’s “priorities,” notes that the dean’s office received new furniture and accoutrement yet s/he cannot find space to meet with students.

Dean Bristor (College of Education)

There were seven comments in response to Question 9 for Dean Bristor and five Additional Comments. Of these, two are positive. “Dr. Bristor is a kind and caring manager,” one notes. Another states that Bristor “
has created a caring and scholarly atmosphere/culture in the College of Education.” Yet four of the remarks point out that the search to select Bristor was too hasty, and that she was chosen from a weak list of candidates. Some see the Dean as not strong enough of a leader, and who falls in line with the Provost’s decisions. One faculty member comments that Bristor is not “impartial,” and has hired individuals for tenure track positions without faculty input. Another thinks she should try to encourage faculty in COE to bring in more grants.
Dean Buller (Honors College):

Four comments were submitted for Dean Buller in response to Question 9 and two Additional Comments. One calls for increased transparency in decision-making processes, another for better and more frequent interaction with the faculty and awareness of their needs. Another notes that a promise was made by Buller in a previous semester to have individual, informal monthly dialogues with faculty, which only happened once throughout the entire term. “The honors college is sinking on Buller’s watch,” a fourth faculty member comments.

Dean Carter (CAUPA):

There were four comments for Dean Carter in response to Question 9 and two Additional Comments. They recommend variously that she is wonderful and ought to be given a raise, should recognize decisions made at the departmental level, is “out of control + has no checks from above,” get more resources especially for junior faculty, and exercise stronger leadership given the current fiscal crisis.

Dean Coates (College of Business):

Four comments were registered for Dean Coates in response to Question 9 and four Additional Comments. One states that Coates is “Great” and another commends him for his forthrightness concerning the budget. Two call for him to be more visible to the faculty and another suggests that he “put in a full day at work and get out in the community more.” One asks that he “reduce administrative staff.” The remainder asserts that the Dean is corrupt and plays favorites.

Dean Friedland (College of Biomedical Science):

Two comments were made in response to Question 9 for Dean Friedman and two Additional Comments were received. One calls on him to eliminate unproductive faculty and be more decisive. Another asserts that the dean has no plan for developing the college in trying economic times. Another faculty member concludes, “The most polarizing administration ever encountered.”

Dean Perry (College of Science):

Eight faculty members responded to Question 9 for Dean Perry and three had additional comments. Four comments commend him or call for him to continue in his position, one describing him as a wonderful dean. One comment recommends his termination and another urges him to interact more with the faculty twice a semester, especially when there are “flux and rumors.” Another remark notes that Perry approaches the administration like a politician rather than a scientist. One faculty member states that the Dean “is manipulated by the provost.”

Dean Stevens (College of Engineering):
Eleven comments were returned in response to Question 9 for Dean Stevens and three Additional Comments. Of these, ten call on him to resign or be fired. Three note that Stevens solicited no faculty input concerning important decisions impacting on the College and that, according to one respondent, “Stevens seems hostile towards any questions or dissent regarding the matter.” Another remarks that Stevens cares more about furthering his own “self interest and his fortunes,” while still another claims that the Dean allows “the financial persons” to have excessive power.
Director Miller (Library):

There were nine comments offered for Director Miller in response to Question 9 and three Additional Comments. Several remarks observe that Miller does not communicate well with librarian faculty, or that he does vicariously through assistant deans. Two comments, however, note Miller’s improved communications. One remark suggests that Miller “
has visions of what the 21st century library can and should be” but limited communication skills inhibit their development. A handful of comments note that Miller has misplaced priorities that privilege various collections and cultural events rather than directing resources to specific library-related concerns in trying fiscal straits. One comment states that one associate director is abusive toward employees. One comment faults Miller for impeded collaboration across academic departments and the Library.
Dean Manjunath Pendakur (Arts and Letters):

There were eighteen written comments for Dean Pendakur and thirteen Additional Comments. Of these, six were positive, with one remarking that he “should
continue his exemplary job.” Another states that Pendakur is supportive of faculty research. Others note that the Dean is working well under demanding circumstances. A majority of the comments, however, assert that Pendakur is a divisive force in the College, disrespectful of faculty decisions and not aligned with or receptive of faculty concerns. Some note that he is “authoritarian” and retaliates against faculty. Seven comments ask for Pendakur to resign or leave FAU.
Assistant Dean Thomas (Henderson School):

There were three comments provided for Assistant Dean Thomas in response to Question 9. Two asked that he be around the School more frequently and be a better communicator, and a third suggests that he make “
himself available to both students and teachers.”
Principal Hodge (Henderson School):

Four comments were made for Principal Hodge in response to Question 9 and one Additional Comment. Three called for her to have improved communication with faculty, staff and/or parents. Another commends her for being a “
Great listener. It is truly a pleasure to work with her.”

6-09 Letter From UFF-FAU President Tracy to Congressman Ron Klein

June 16, 2009

US Congressman Ron Klein
Palm Beach Office

1900 Glades Road, Suite 260
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Dear Congressman Klein,

I am writing to bring a very serious matter to your attention. On May 29 Florida Atlantic University’s administration terminated five tenured professors in FAU’s College of Engineering under the auspices of budgetary constraints and departmental reorganization. Each professor had in excess of fifteen years of service to the university. FAU’s faculty members as a whole consider this act to be one that threatens the academic profession not just at FAU but nationally. Many FAU professors now rightly fear for their livelihoods, while the university’s reputation has been placed in serious question. This does not bode well for the economic vitality of our region. Nor is this an economically wise move on the university’s behalf. Our union is filing grievances and a costly series of individual lawsuits will also likely proceed. Of what may be of particular concern to you is the fact that Florida Atlantic has accepted over twelve million dollars in federal stimulus money for the 2009-10 fiscal year–funding which of course is intended to shore up the broader economy by preventing layoffs.

Faculty members are now arrayed against the unchecked power and questionable judgment of the university’s top administrators and Board of Trustees. On June 5 the University Faculty Senate unanimously condemned the firing of the five faculty members. This action was dismissed by the President and Board of Trustees. UFF-FAU has repeatedly informed FAU administrators and attorneys of the university’s significant financial reserves that could be utilized to sustain its programs, faculty, and staff. For your information, a June 3 statement from me to faculty provides further details, and a version complete with hyperlinks to relevant data is available at our url below.

I think you will agree that quality teaching and research by competent and fairly paid faculty constitute important ways out of the present economic recession. Yet here and elsewhere the profession that can lead this effort is in considerable peril, and this situation likely portends what lies ahead for higher education as a whole.

On behalf of Florida Atlantic University’s faculty I greatly appreciate your consideration of the above and look forward and look forward to hearing any appropriate actions that may be taken or suggestions from you or your staff.

Sincerely

James Tracy
President

Results of UFF-FAU 2007-08 Assessment of Administrators

The following tables present the results of the faculty assessment of administrators conducted at the end of the 2007-2008 academic year by UFF/FAU.  This survey is an annual event intended to promote good leadership by providing administrators with regular, systematic feedback and by providing faculty with information about how administrators are doing.  Administrators’ absolute scores are probably less useful than their position relative to others.  For example, the tables do provide a useful comparison of how deans make personnel and salary decisions as perceived by the faculty.

In order to increase the attention paid to the qualitative results of the evaluation, UFF also analyzed the responses to the open-ended question (“The university would be better served if…”).  The analysis of these comments is included in this report.  Because of the forthright nature of some comments they will only being made available in a password protected area of the UFF-FAU website.

This report is limited to those administrators who remain in administrative posts at FAU.  The former Dean of Education has left the University, and so is unreported here.  The former Interim Dean of Arts and Letters has rejoined the faculty, and so is likewise unreported here  (a smattering of appraisals for her successor are disregarded as premature).  The former VP of the MacArthur campus remains in an administrative capacity at this institution, at the same rank, and is included (with the Treasure Coast VP now VP for all the northern campuses).

The total number of questionnaires returned was 185.

TABLE ONE: DEANS/DIRECTORS

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE:  1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

DEAN/DIRECTOR

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

N=

Boykin, Anne

3.70

4.64

4.36

3.80

3.89

4.36

4.45

4.36

11

Buller, Jeffrey

2.25

2.11

2.29

263

2.60

2.50

2.13

2.50

9

Carter, Rosalyn

3.08

3.77

3.08

3.40

2.21

3.46

3.31

3.58

14

Coates, Dennis

3.00

3.52

2.86

3.56

3.52

3.73

3.69

3.54

28

Friedland, Michael

2.13

2.13

2.40

2.33

2.00

2.26

2.36

2.13

15

Miller, William

2.80

3.40

2.20

2.00

2.33

2.50

2.33

2.50

5

Perry, Gary

4.15

4.50

4.16

4.30

3.88

4.28

4.35

4.21

30

Stevens, Karl

2.33

2.44

1.89

2.44

2.00

2.00

2.22

2.13

9

KEY TO TABLE ONE:

Question #1. Consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.

Question #2. Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

Question #3. Makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.

Question #4. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

Question #5. Distributes discretionary money fairly.

Question #6. Is a good administrator.

Question #7. Is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.

Question #8. OVERALL, the Dean/Director is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-7 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 8 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

TABLE TWO: PRESIDENT, PROVOST, AND VICE PRESIDENTS

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE:  1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

ADMINISTRATOR

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

N=

Brogan, Frank (President)

2.62

2.47

2.70

3.13

2.77

181

Pritchett, John (Provost)

3.40

2.56

3.26

3.33

3.32

2.82

3.32

181

McPherson, Gerri, (VP, Treasure Coast Campus)

4.75

4.00

4.20

4.50

4.75

5.00

4.20

5

Murtaugh, Kristen (Vice President, MacArthur Campus)

3.59

3.19

3.28

3.18

3.75

3.43

3.38

22

Stephens, Joyanne, (VP, Broward Campuses)

3.84

3.60

3.23

3.76

4.04

3.79

3.46

30

KEY TO TABLE TWO:

FOR THE PRESIDENT,

QUESTION #1. Makes sure that administrators make decisions fairly and in the best interests of the university.

QUESTION #2. Makes decisions that are in the best interests of the faculty and professional staff.

QUESTION #3. Upholds academic standards and encourages a scholarly atmosphere.

QUESTION #4. Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.

QUESTION #5. OVERALL, President Brogan is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-4 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 5 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

FOR THE PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENTS,

QUESTION #1. Is a good administrator.

QUESTION #2. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

QUESTION #3. Keeps faculty informed about decisions.

QUESTION #4. PROVOST: Makes sure that Vice Presidents and Deans make fair decisions.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Ensures that campus fiscal resources are appropriately allotted and expended.

QUESTION #5. PROVOST: Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Is competent in overseeing daily campus operations.

QUESTION #6. PROVOST: Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the university.

VICE PRESIDENTS: Is an effective leader who promotes the development of the campus.

QUESTION #7. OVERALL, the Provost/Vice President is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-6 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 7 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

Henderson School returns (N = 8):

TABLE:  PRINCIPAL AND DIRECTOR

MEAN SCORE ON QUESTION (SCALE:  1-5, WITH 5 HIGHEST)

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Brady, Marla (Principal)

3.00

3.88

2.75

3.14

3.50

3.25

3.38

3.50

Thomas Glenn (Director)

3.00

3.88

3.38

3.38

3.29

3.38

3.63

3.38

KEY TO TABLE ONE:

Question #1. Consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.

Question #2. Upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.

Question #3. Makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.

Question #4. Uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.

Question #5. Principal: Makes sensible curriculum decisions.

Director: Distributes discretionary money fairly.

Question #6. Is a good administrator.

Question #7. Is an effective leader who promotes the school.

Question #8. OVERALL, the Principal/Director is

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1-7 WERE

5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree; 0=Don’t Know

THE RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 8 WERE

5=Excellent; 4=Above Average; 3=Average; 2=Below Average; 1=Poor; 0=Don’t Know

ANALYSIS OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS

The UFF/FAU administrator assessment form for 2007-2008 included an open-ended question, “The university would be better served if…,” which provided an opportunity for faculty to comment on an administrator’s performance.  There was space as well for additional comments.  A summary of all the written comments is given below:

President Brogan:

Among the faculty who returned questionnaires, 72 wrote comments on the University President.  Three of these respondents praise him more or less highly; five others compliment him mildly – a number of these, however, noting that with him as president  the University has not prospered.  A few comments touch upon the need for him to improve funding for the university through lobbying and fund-raising so as to enhance both research and instructional resources.  Others call upon him to exercise academic leadership and appoint better administrators – a couple urging him to replace the Provost with someone more collegial than authoritarian.  Other comments call upon him to be more open and engaged with the faculty, improve academics and the academic environment, support and show more respect for the faculty, listen to the faculty, and raise faculty salaries.  Multiple comments criticize him variously for his lack of a doctorate, his handling of the Davenport matter (“The lies over Davenport alone would have gotten anyone else fired.”), his focus on sports – especially football – over academics, and a number of other perceived shortcomings.  A total of 21 comments call for him to resign or be fired.

Provost Pritchett:

Sixty-four respondents wrote comments on the Provost on the questionnaires they returned.  Six comments are complimentary, even highly so.  Of the rest, nine call for him to have greater contact with the faculty, four complain that he has little contact and is out of touch with the faculty, and four report that they know nothing about him or what he does. Six comments describe him as dismissive of faculty input and supportive of the deans against faculty interests.  A couple of comments urge him to learn more about what is going on in the colleges, and others report bad leadership in some colleges that is going unaddressed.  Five comments call for him to improve academic standards; another enjoins him to fulfill his promise to improve the academic atmosphere and raise faculty salaries.  A number of other comments call on him variously to be a better leader, put FAU’s interests before his own, be more honest with the faculty, and show greater integrity.  Three comments criticize him for hiring a friend from Auburn at a high salary in a time of fiscal crisis – this being described by one commentator as “unprofessional and an abuse of his powers.”  A total of nine comments call for him to resign or be removed.

Vice President McPherson (Treasure Coast Campus):

There were two comments for Vice President McPherson.  One advises her to be more visible.  The other faults her for lacking a doctorate and professorial experience, hence being a poor role model (noting the same for President Brogan).

Vice president Murtaugh (MacArthur Campus):

There were seven comments for Vice President Murtaugh.  One commends her for doing a good job, two recommend that she retire.  Four comments state that she should be more visible and interactive with the faculty.  The need for her to be more scholarly and focused on academics is mentioned.

Vice President Stephens (Broward Campuses):

There were fifteen comments for Vice President Stephens.  Three comments are complimentary; several report not knowing who she is or what she does.  The most that is said about her presence is that “she is around from time to time.”  Recommendations include actually consulting with faculty and being a stronger advocate for additional funding.  In one comment she is described as being too submissive to the main campus administrators.

Dean Boykin (College of Nursing):

Three comments were turned in for Dean Boykin.  One compliments her for her willingness to provide support and guidance.  Another urges her to spend more time with faculty and day-to-day operations – on all campuses.  The third faults her for favoritism and showing greater interest in expenditures for the College’s building than in providing support for teaching activities, such as teaching assistants.

Dean Buller (Honors College):

Five comments were turned in for Dean Buller.  One calls for increased transparency, another for closer interaction with the faculty and awareness of their needs.  Two call for his resignation, one of them faulting him for a limited grasp of honors education, lack of fund-raising ability, and inadequacy as an advocate for the College – ending with a suggestion that the positions of dean and associate dean be merged to save money.

Dean Carter (CAUPA):

There were four comments for Dean Carter.  They recommend variously that she listen to faculty, get more resources, and exercise stronger leadership especially given the current fiscal crisis.

Dean Coates (College of Business):

Eight comments were turned in for Dean Coates.  One praises him while three call for his resignation.  A comment calls for him to be more visible to the faculty, another for him to put in a full day’s work as opposed to what he has been doing.  Charges of corruption and of violations of the collective bargaining agreement are leveled.

Dean Friedland (College of Biomedical Science):

Eight comments for Dean Friedman.  One praises him as an excellent leader while three call for his removal.  One comment describes him as dictatorial, another as promoting a hostile work environment, and another as treating some faculty disrespectfully.

Dean Perry (College of Science):

There were twelve comments for Dean Perry.  Three comments call for him to continue in his position, one describing him as a wonderful dean.  Three comments urge him to interact more with the faculty, one adding that he needs to follow through with initiatives and develop a multi-year plan.  Budget constraints are acknowledged in some comments, one noting that the additional resources needed should include funds for faculty salaries.

Dean Stevens (College of Engineering):

Five comments were turned in for Dean Stevens.  One urges him to provide vision and faults him for not consulting with the faculty and for spending too much time promoting his “green building” concept.  The other four comments call for his resignation, one noting that the Dean’s Office is oversized, absorbing resources that could better be used for teaching assistants, etc.

Director Miller (Library):

There were five comments for Director Miller.  Two comments note that he goes through the motions of consulting with faculty and staff, but appears to have his mind made up in advance.  A couple of comments report that one associate director is abusive, damaging morale, but Director Miller takes no action.  One comment expresses concern about the Library’s “awkward” web page and its navigability, and calls for improved collaboration between academic departments and the Library.

Director Thomas (Henderson School):

There were two comments for Director Thomas, calling for him to be more of a presence and more involved at Henderson, and not spread so thin.

Principal Brady (Henderson School):

Two comments for Principal Brady.  One calls for her to be more communicative with the faculty.  The other urges her to exercise less bias and favoritism in her treatment of the faculty.