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.”