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

FAU Personnel Growth by Employee Category 2003-09

April 13, 2010. Over the past several years administrative positions (AMP) have far outpaced most other categories, particularly faculty involved in instruction, FAU data suggest.

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% Change 2003-2009

Faculty

966

1,013

1,040

1,041

1,070

1,090

1,059

10%

Instructional       Faculty

733

736

766

775

809

804

792

8%

Tenured and
Tenure Earning

557 581

684

685

676

665

16%

AMP

642

686

717

795

846

879

856

33%

SP

733

773

729

710

703

773

730

-0%

OPS

413

476

384

399

391

377

365

-3%

Adjuncts

581

675

650

530

567

531

564

-3%

Graduate Student

675

742

764

867

846

893


925

37%

Total

4,010

4,365

4,284

4,342

4,423

4,543

4,499

12%

Source:  FAU Fact Book, various years. Click here to obtain more detailed information about the disproportionate growth of administrative versus faculty positions at FAU.

State of the Union Address

April 10, 2010. UFF can help create a workplace where faculty and staff are treated fairly and with respect, but it is only as strong as the degree of member involvement.

I picked one hell of a year to make my debut as UFF-FAU Chapter President. In the winter of 2008 a colleague who was also involved in UFF telephoned me and said they had been informed that no one from UFF was returning Palm Beach Post reporter Kim Miller’s calls. Miller really wanted to speak to a faculty and union member who would provide some remarks that might contrast with the administration’s press releases and soundbites, and reflect what at least some of the faculty likely have on their minds.

And then this person essentially said, “If you do speak to the press you had better be careful because they’re going to come after you.” I had heard similar remarks previously from others. For example, that Frank Brogan likely has an enemies list and you had better not speak out of turn or you’ll find yourself on it. So, I thought, “Who are we working with? The mob?”

So, I made a decision to speak to reporters as frequently as they wished. I figured that the administration likely has the power to retaliate, and Mr. Brogan may have an enemies list. Yet, as scholars we have an obligation to stand up and speak out against an environment of intimidation, fear and favoritism. Such an environment is totally antithetical to what we do–which is to inquire, to question, to teach, and to do so from certain underlying principles of morality and truth. And sometimes the truth flies in the face of the latest press release.

In addition, we have a union. Some of us even have tenure. And since we have these things we should put them good use; to create a workplace where faculty and staff are treated fairly and with respect.

That being said, this past year has felt more like ten years. The Union may have lost some battles. For example, the Trustees’ decision on the 2.5% salary increase that our bargaining team fought so hard to secure. It was just when I was learning the ropes of being a Chapter officer when I attended the Board of Trustees Personnel Committee Hearing last April, and the decision was made to vote down that very modest salary increase. I can’t convey to you how humiliated the faculty in attendance were made to feel at that venue.

With the layoffs of tenured faculty in the College of Engineering the following month it appeared that the administration had bent the stick too far. This was an overt attack on tenure, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the faculty as a whole. As one member of the Faculty Senate remarked on June 5, “If they can do that to them, they can do it to any of us.”

I think it’s safe to say that in the wake of these events the Union and the Faculty Senate fought vigorously to defend tenure and enforce our Contract. The five faculty members who were laid off have since been appointed to positions–not their original positions–but positions with their tenure and seniority intact.

We also learned a few days ago that the administration is moving to do away with the College of Engineering’s “functional units,” which were used to cordon off faculty in that College for layoffs. I’m not holding my breath for administrators to issue a statement that these actions were in response to the steadfastness of UFF, the Faculty Senate, and the Faculty Assembly in Engineering. But I would like to think that these bodies may have had some modest influences on these decisions. We should especially thank Faculty Senate President Tim Lenz for his leadership over the past year, UFF Grievance Chair Doug Broadfield, and UFF Service Unit Coordinator Bruce Nissen.

FAU also has a new university president who’s been appointed and we would like to think that perhaps we’re turning a corner.

Another exciting thing the Chapter is undertaking is a campaign to build our membership. As some of you know, this involves one-on-one contact with colleagues asking that they pay their dues, thereby becoming full-fledged UFF members. We have to remember that Florida is a right to work state, and as public employees we do not have the right not to work.

In 2003 an overwhelming majority of FAU faculty members voted to recertify United Faculty of Florida as their bargaining representative. But, in a right to work state the same faculty can opt out of paying their dues. That’s why, aside from bargaining and contract enforcement, we have to constantly build our membership. We do that by asking colleagues to become dues-paying members. We also have to make sure that all of our resources go toward building membership. That’s what makes the chapter, the statewide UFF and FEA, and our national affiliates, NEA and AFT, strong advocates for higher education in the state and federal legislative levels and capable of rendering aid locally when we need it.

Why is this important? Well, take for example what Republican legislators in Tallahassee are presently trying to do to the Florida Retirement System. Or what they’re trying to do to Florida’s school teachers. FEA lobbyists are in the halls of the capitol defending FRS, and prompting us to telephone and email our legislators to preserve the retirement system and teacher tenure.

Our website has averaged close to 1,000 hits daily over the past three-to-four weeks. We could not keep you updated on this unless our state affiliate had the resources to put people on the ground to report back to us and coordinate collective action. The same can be said for providing our chapter with legal assistance when that has become necessary.

So, our dues-paying membership is growing. We have about 42 new members sign up since September. Please thank Rob McCarthy, Mike Budd, and Dave Lee for all of their hard work on membership.

On that note, I don’t see our Chapter moving forward in the medium and long term without us building a strong sense of community and purpose. What does that entail? It entails becoming involved, even if that involvement is one or two hours per month. We can’t have a union just by people paying their dues in case something goes wrong. The union is not merely a service plan. It consists of the collective activity of its members.

We are fortunate enough to have jobs that allow us an incredible degree of professional autonomy and freedom. This makes it that much easier to say, “Well, let them do it. I’ve got my own projects and deadlines, so let the ‘union people’ do it.”

With that attitude we’ll never develop. We are the union. When we begin thinking and acting more so along those lines–each of us making a modest commitment toward building the union–we’ll be on our way. Then there will be nothing that can stop us.

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

FAU’s Assets Swell to Almost $1 billion: 2008-09 Financial Audit Now Available!

April 1, 2010. In June 2009 the University’s assets had increased by $76.8 million over 2008, operating revenue was up 14.6%, and liabilities decreased 1.3%.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The University’s assets totaled $974.3 million at June 30, 2009. This balance reflects a $76.8 million, or 8.6 percent increase from the 2007-08 fiscal year, resulting from invested funds from student collections on hand and amounts due from the State for public education capital outlay (PECO) appropriations. While assets grew, liabilities decreased by $2.4 million, or 1.3 percent, totaling $185.5 million at June 30, 2009, compared to $187.9 million at June 30, 2008.

As a result, the University’s net assets increased by $79.1 million, reaching a year-end balance of $788.8 million. The University’s operating revenues totaled $201.8 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year, representing a 14.6 percent increase over the 2007-08 fiscal year due mainly to a receipt of $8.8 million from the Florida Energy System Consortium. Operating expenses totaled $395.2 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year, representing an increase of 1.7 percent over the 2007-08 fiscal year (P. 3).

Download entire FAU Financial Audit in pdf by clicking here.

See related posts:

University Administrators Nationwide Cry Crocodile Tears Over Budgets

Review of 2007-08 Financial Audits of Florida Atlantic University (pdf)