UFF-FAU

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

May 3, 2010. FAU administrators’ concerns over the budget contradicted by recent extravagances, Raises for designated few while tuition increases and faculty salaries reach new lows.

On rather short notice (April 30), the FAU administration has called for convening another forum on the university’s budget to take place on the afternoon of May 3. The following questions were received by UFF-FAU from faculty members who feared submitting them directly to the FAU administration.

1)  FAU faculty salaries are the lowest in the state of Florida among doctoral-granting institutions. They have sunk to levels that are now below FIU and FIT over the past ten years. Why is it that area community colleges (now state colleges) have been able to manage their budgets with soaring enrollments and award faculty pay raises?  It seems troubling that these community colleges have more increases in enrollments than FAU, but are managing their funds in ways that value their faculty much more than FAU.

2)  Why is it that FAU administrators decided to expend funds on a medical school during these bleak financial times, at the clear expense of zero growth in faculty compensation and increased tuition for students?

3)  What is the FAU administration going to do about the condition that faculty at many levels within FAU are compensated at much lower levels than newer faculty being hired at FAU?  Is this a message to FAU’s more senior faculty that administrators and Trustees prefer we leave and work elsewhere? What does this suggest about how administrators value an experienced and seasoned faculty body?

4)  How does FAU justify the fact that some faculty and administrators received “salary adjustments” over the last few years (net effect of raises) and others did not?  This seems clearly to be a patronage form of governing the university. Does the administration support or condone what is essentially a system of favoritism?

5) Why is FAU continuing to add administrators and staff, but cut faculty (see the decreasing percentages of faculty at FAU at uff-fau.org)? Why are administrators not being let go? What exactly is it that administrators do that contributes to the University’s “excellence”?

6) Is the FAU administration willing to host or be involved in a budget forum where students, students’ parents, community members, media, and non-university administration affiliated budget analysts are invited to participate?

7) FAU’s 2009 Financial Audit indicates that the University’s net unrestricted assets increased by $20 million to around $92 million, and its overall assets are now estimated to be almost $1 billion. The FAU Research Corporation and Harbor Branch Institute Research Corporation have about $175 million in national and international stocks and securities, estimated at fair market value as of June 2009, shortly after equity markets had lifted from their nadir. Given these reserves how can the university administration continue to plead poverty?

May 3, 2010. In 1999-2000 FAU paid its faculty more than FIU and FIT, FAU faculty salaries are now the lowest in the state, Objective 5 of BOT Strategic Plan remains glaringly unfulfilled.

Salaries for FAU faculty fell far behind FIU over the past ten years, mainly under the leadership of former Republican Lieutenant Governor Frank Brogan and FAU’s Board of Trustees. For example, according to recently-released AAUP salary data in 1999-2000 faculty salaries at FAU were actually higher than FIU’s, but over the past ten years FIU salaries eventually surpassed those of FAU. In 2000 Full Professors at FIU earned an average of $68,200, versus $72,700 at FAU, while FIU Associate Professors made $53,000 versus $55,800 at FAU, and Assistant Professors took home $44,600 at FIU as FAU Assistant Professors made $45,400.

The figures show how FAU has clearly failed in fulfilling Objective 5 of the BOT’s Strategic Plan, “Provide competitive faculty salaries that will assure recruitment and retention of a diverse and highly productive faculty who will contribute to building superior academic programs and research capacity.”  Instead of fulfilling Objective 5, FAU has gone in the exact opposite direction. Moreover, the failure of FAU administrators and trustees to address faculty pay disparities has taken place alongside substantial pay increases for administrators and an overall increase in administrative positions.

See related post:

FAU Faculty Salaries Lowest in Florida

April 13, 2010. Recently-released AAUP Salary Survey shows FAU languishing behind Florida Institute of Technology and Florida International University among doctoral granting institutions, Tenured female faculty at FAU now have the lowest salaries in the state.

Florida Atlantic University now has an especially noteworthy claim to statewide fame: the lowest overall faculty salaries among the state’s public and private doctoral-granting institutions, and substantially lower salaries for tenured female associate and full professors. According to the recently published American Association of University Professors 2009-10 Faculty Salary Survey, FAU is now beneath Florida Institute of Technology in faculty compensation and even further below regional peer Florida International University. In 2008-09 FIT was in last place among doctoral institutions and FAU was in second-to-last place.

FAU administrators and trustees have refused to offer even modest salary increases in the 2009-12 Collective Bargaining Agreement that is presently being negotiated, almost confirming that FAU will hold the last place spot in the AAUP rankings for the foreseeable future.

According to the AAUP data, a tenured Full Professor at FAU earns over $4,000 less per nine-month contract than her/his peers at FIT, and $19,000 less than those at FIU. Yet comparisons along gender lines illustrate an even greater gap. Full professors who are women at FAU earn $11,000 less than those at FIT, but a staggering $25,000 below their FIU counterparts.

The disparities are a bit less extreme at the Associate Professor level, where FAU faculty earn $2,800 less than those at FIT. Yet on average FAU still pays Associate Professors $7,800 less than FIU. And again, female Associate Professors at FAU are the lowest paid among all of the state’s doctoral institutions, earning on average $8,500 less than faculty who are women at FIT and $4,800 less than FIU’s female faculty.

Only at the Assistant Professor and Instructor levels is FAU marginally competitive with its doctoral-granting peers. New tenure-track faculty at FAU can expect to earn a modest $600.00 more than at FIT. Assistant professors at FIU, however, start out at $10,800 more annually. Female assistant professors at FAU actually make $7,500 more than their counterparts at FIT, but still fall behind FIU by $7,300.

Instructors at FAU can expect to make about $2,800 more annually than at FIT, but $10,000 less than FIU instructors. Female instructors employed at FAU will earn $4,800 more than at FIT, but $9,600 less than if they were working at FIU.

The bottom line is that the longer one stays on faculty at FAU the less she or he will make in comparison to peers working at other SUS and private institutions. This is even more so the case for FAU’s female faculty. The FAU administration and trustees have opposed UFF’s requests for modest salary increases, such as the 2.5% salary increase recommended by the PERC Special Magistrate in April 2009, even though FAU’s assets increased by $76.8 million in 2008-09. In fact, assets have increased along similar lines every year since 2003.

FAU has resources comparable to regional peer FIU, but as the above suggests  over the past several years the institution’s human capital has not been a priority.

See related posts:

Medical School is a Luxury FAU Can’t Afford

FAU’s Assets Swell to Almost $1 billion

Average annual salary by academic rank (in thousands)
Institution
		Professor			Associate Professor			Assistant Professor			Instructor
Type Name		All	Men	Women	All	Men	Women	All	Men	Women	All	Men	Women
Florida Atlantic U (Florida)	I	92.0	96.5	80.0	70.5	72.2	68.0	61.9	62.0	61.8	44.5	46.2	43.3
Florida Inst of Technology (Florida)	I	96.1	96.7	91.4	73.3	72.7	76.5	61.3	65.8	54.3	41.7	46.2	38.5
Florida International U (Florida)	I	111.0	112.3	105.4	78.3	81.5	72.8	72.7	75.8	69.1	54.5	56.1	52.7
Florida State U (Florida)	I	104.2	106.9	94.6	73.0	74.4	71.0	70.8	72.1	68.9	36.5	43.3	29.6
Nova Southeastern U (Florida)	I	115.8	115.2	116.9	72.3	74.8	69.4	67.6	69.1	65.8	50.2	52.6	49.7
U of Central Florida (Florida)	I	115.8	115.6	117.0	77.2	79.5	73.0	65.1	67.5	60.8	45.4	45.2	45.5
U of Florida (Florida)	I	117.0	119.7	106.3	75.5	77.8	71.6	63.9	65.5	61.6
U of Miami (Florida)	I	132.5	131.9	135.5	86.9	89.9	81.3	79.1	80.7	77.4	75.0		75.0
U of South Florida (Florida)	I	107.0	110.3	95.5	77.0	80.3	72.7	65.6	67.6	63.5	51.1	53.9	49.1

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.

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

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)

February 24, 2010. FAU admin & trustees’ refusal to arbitrate to be challenged through Motion to Compel Arbitration in circuit court.

Imagine that you are walking to your car after work. It’s late at night and your ride is the last one in a poorly-lit parking garage. Suddenly, a knife-wielding figure jumps out of the darkness, knocks you down and violently stabs you in the abdomen. The person then dashes off into the night. You’re thoroughly traumatized, even though you’d received threats and were already on guard. From your hospital bed you find that your assailant has been apprehended by the police. Although he acknowledges the attack, he maintains that he should not appear before a judge because, after all, he was nice enough to pull the knife out of your person before absconding and plans to pick up your hospital bill and send you some flowers as you recover.

The analogy is not perfect. To be so it would have to provide for how your attacker was also your employer, and thus had control over where you park your car and what time you leave work. Yet this is essentially what took place on May 29, 2009 when the Frank Brogan and John Pritchett-led administration assailed the faculty body and the institution of tenure at FAU. The administration has since asserted that even though a bludgeoning of the faculty body may have taken place, all is now better and there is really no need for a silly arbitration.

It is true that the administration has partially withdrawn the knife from the faculty body (two of the five layoffs have now been officially rescinded and all faculty members have been provided with alternative positions), yet the body is still wounded while the culprit stubbornly refuses to abide by the arbitration process provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Further, the assurance and peace of mind the faculty body once may have had for its safety is now gone, probably for good. This is not merely a refusal to arbitrate. More importantly, it is a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the faculty’s legal representative–United Faculty of Florida.

This is the essence of the argument presented in UFF-FAU’s Unfair Labor Practice charge filed with PERC earlier this month concerning the union’s Chapter Grievance: the entire faculty body is harmed when the administration/BOT is allowed to violate the CBA–in this instance by setting up “functional units” to bypass the CBA and target tenured faculty. FEA attorneys now intend to file a Motion to Compel Arbitration in circuit court on the grounds that the FAU administration and trustees are in no position to unilaterally determine whether a grievance is arbitrable. Only a trained arbitrator has the capacity to do this.

ULPs and lawsuits both take time to receive hearings. UFF-FAU will keep you apprised of further developments as we become aware of them. This time around, FAU trustees and administrators may have to learn the hard way that they cannot arrogantly claim, “I am the state!” as they did in dismissing the PERC Special Magistrate’s ruling on faculty salaries in April 2009. This is an especially good thing given their particularly one-sided sense of justice.

February 17, 2010. “Educational reform” measures put forth by Florida’s Council of 100 business leaders and endorsed by GOP power broker Jeb Bush require scrutiny in historical context.

When considering the recent proposals comprising “Closing the Talent Gap,” put forth this month by Florida’s Council of 100,  it is important to keep in mind the dramatic political and structural changes to Florida’s State University System that have occurred over the past ten years. An oft-overlooked or forgotten chapter of Florida higher education’s recent past should be kept at the forefront of our thinking so that we may place the United Faculty of Florida and SUS’s plight in proper perspective. Central to this is  the quasi-privitization of the state’s public universities, termed “devolution,” that took place under Jeb Bush’s governorship and the successful move to destroy the statewide collective bargaining framework existing between the United Faculty of Florida and Florida’s Board of Regents.

Florida is part of the “Old South,” and one of the South’s legacies is a hostility toward independent worker organization that can be traced, without too much imagination, to the antebellum era. In the face of broad unionization throughout the US northeastern, mid-west, and western states during the 1940s and 1950s, American corporations sought to relocate to areas where there was less unionization and the deck was stacked against organizing through anti-labor laws. Like many of their counterparts in the Old Confederacy after passage of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, Florida legislators moved to make it more difficult for workers to form unions through implementation of “right to work,” or “open shop” laws. At institutions where a majority of workers managed to vote union representation into existence, such laws allowed employees to opt out of paying dues even though they were members of the bargaining unit and received the protections and benefits of representation. UFF’s present organizing efforts are rooted in attempts to work within the framework of these very laws designed to undermine worker power and solidarity that a strong union can provide. Our organizing efforts are never-ending.

The UFF membership’s resolve to maintain its capacity as a statewide faculty union was dealt a heavy blow in the early 2000s. The Board of Regents that oversaw the SUS resisted a handful of powerful legislators’ attempts to build law schools at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Florida International University, and a medical school at Florida State University. Infuriated at the BOR’s recalcitrance, Governor Bush and an unusual coalition of Republican and Democratic state legislators moved to abolish the BOR and decentralize the SUS. The result was that each institution was placed under the direct oversight of a separate Board of Trustees.

This decentralization of power to BOTs was in close accord with the national Republican Party’s mission to privatize public institutions and run government “like a business.” The move was also an obvious attempt to weaken Florida’s teacher and faculty unions, which have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. Bush made sure the eleven new BOTs were loaded with pro-business Republican donors, a practice reconfirmed in  BOG Chancellor and Bush associate Frank Brogan’s October 2009 BOT (re)appointments. These trustees, many of whom do not possess a full understanding of public higher education and would just as soon farm out university instruction to unqualified “private contractors” (adjuncts), are indifferent if not hostile toward public employees’ unions and collective bargaining.

The governance changes were used by the new BOTs as a basis to end bargaining that, since the UFF’s establishment in the mid-1970s, took place between UFF and the BOR. The BOTs argued unanimously that they were no longer bound by the statewide agreements. In response, with the aid of our parent organization, the American Federation of Teachers, UFF mobilized and collected thousands of authorization cards from large majorities of faculty to recertify each UFF chapter as a bargaining agent with their respective BOTs. At eight universities faculty support for recertification of UFF was 65% or more and the BOTs at these institutions voluntarily recognized UFF. At FAU 70% of faculty members who were approached signed cards for recertification. University of West Florida and Florida State University held out for elections where UFF went on to win 90% or more of the ballots at each institution. The University of Florida’s BOT refused to recognize UFF until 2005, when an appellate court decided in the Union’s favor (Fiorito and Gallagher, 2006).

The radical move to decentralize was tempered in 2002 when Florida Governor Bob Graham’s voter amendment mandated a Board of Governors to administer SUS affairs. In contrast to the BOR, however, power exercised by the BOG takes a backseat to the BOTs. (The BOG Chancellorship being occupied by Bush’s former Lieutenant Governor is a curious new development that deserves close scrutiny.) In light of the above, the aforementioned package of “educational reform” proposals put forward by Florida’s Council of 100 and vigorously endorsed by Bush must also be looked at with major reservations, particularly by public educators. For example, the moves to strip K-12 teachers of tenure–or to otherwise make tenure meaningless–is a policy already being tested in the SUS. Further, the document’s buzzwords, such as “accountability” and “efficiency,” often translate to jeopardized academic freedom and an increasingly deteriorating educational experience for students.

This history is willfully forgotten by administrators and trustees at FAU and other state universities, many of whom calculated that UFF would be incapable of reviving itself after the SUS’s decentralization. The sentiment is reflected in remarks such as, “UFF ‘represents some faculty at [ABC] University.’” Keeping in mind this recent history, such an assertion should be recognized for what it is: an attempt to mislead those of us who’ve forgotten or are unaware of our institutional and historical positions in the struggle to preserve the profession’s autonomy. Without question faculty at FAU and throughout the SUS desire independent representation before their administrations and Boards of Trustees, even though the legacy of Old Dixie allows them the opportunity not to pay for such representation.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

Fiorito, J. and V.C. Gallagher (2006) ‘Renewal in the United Faculty of Florida: class war in paradise?’ Labor Studies Journal Vol 31,No 3:39-64.

February 12, 2010. Necessary to address FAU administrators’ continued stonewalling, PERC hearing anticipated in April.

Readers of this blog are well aware of the FAU administration’s extravagant degree of foot-dragging and refusal to agree to a preliminary meeting for arbitration of the Chapter Grievance relating to the reorganization and subsequent layoff of five tenured faculty members in the College of Engineering. Article 20.3(b) of the CBA empowers UFF to “file a grievance in a dispute over a provision of this Agreement which confers rights upon the UFF.”

An Unfair Labor Practice charge has been processed by UFF-FAU after repeated pleas to the FAU administration to comply with the CBA on the above. Contrary to Provost Diane Alperin’s interpretive remarks, FAU does not have the right to assess the arbitrability of a grievance it is a party to. On January 28 this ULP was referred to Florida Education Association attorneys. We anticipate this action will receive a hearing before the Public Employees Relations Commission in April.

Should this action even be necessary? Not if the wishes of UFF and the College of Engineering faculty were acknowledged and forthrightly addressed by FAU administrators. Not if the FAU administration and BOT adhered to the CBA to which they are signatories.  The administrators’ stance in this and related matters is to throw up roadblocks and stall when they perceive they may be in the wrong, hoping somehow that the clock will run out so they don’t have to face up to pressing faculty concerns they are paid quite dearly to deal with. In the end, the taxpayer will likely have to pick up the tab for hefty legal fees on this unfortunate and drastic action.

See related posts:

UFF-FAU President Tracy Asks Administration Address Engineering Faculty Discontent, College Reorganization

FAU Administration Slow to Act on Arbitration Preliminaries

FAU Administration Stalls, Throws Up Roadblocks on Grievances

Shake Hands with the Devil

February 1, 2010. FAU Eminent Scholar and UFF take on administrator’s headstrong efforts to disrupt established and productive research program.

Dear Colleagues,

I’m Lester Embree, the William F. Dietrich Eminent Scholar in Philosophy. This is to tell you something about my recent experience with the union.

The summer before last, the new dean in the Schmidt College asked me to volunteer as an example by teaching an extra section in the economic bad time for the university. I agreed on the expectation it would be a third course taught the following Spring and that I would remain free in the Fall to attend conferences overseas, as I had done frequently for 10 years and from which many my recent publications have come.

My chief responsibilities as Eminent Scholar at least used to be extensive research primarily and professional service secondarily. I have always received the highest annual evaluations. My two-course-per-year teaching load was agreed to when I was hired in 1990 and was maintained for 19 years by six deans in a row (the shelf life of deans in my college is short). It is a complicated story, but when the extra course was scheduled for the Fall rather than the Spring, thus disrupting my travel and research program, I protested, ultimately “un-volunteered,” and was then assigned against my will to teach then not one but two additional courses and thus that my traditional teaching load was doubled.

During this time, I was offered to teach a short course in Taiwan for $15,000 and proposed to use that money to fund five (5) adjunct-taught sections in my place, but my offer was declined and I began to suspect that more than I could see was going on, but I have not yet figured out what it is.

Long a member of the union, I turned to it for help. Doug Broadfield, the UFF Contract Enforcement Chair, helped me bring a series of grievances, but to no avail. Then we sought support from the union on the state-wide level for “Binding Arbitration.” Since that involved the investment of substantial money, it was not sure to be agreed to, and I was delighted when we received agreement with the reason that this was no way to use an Eminent Scholar.

Binding arbitration is quite a process. Ultimately the case was lost. All along we knew that our chances were at best 50/50, yet I had the ultimately futile hope that the university would settle rather than embarrass itself by treating a top performer this way.

What I am sharing here are two documents used in the arbitration process: “The Disruption of my Program of Research and Professional Leadership” I wrote to introduce myself to Bruce Nissen, whom I had not yet met and who was coming to lead my union representation. I now confess to have gotten carried away while analyzing my c.v. and coming to see that I had accomplished far more at FAU than I had previously recognized. Please excuse the seeming immodesty, which is not usual for me.

The second document is the “Final-Union-Brief” prepared by Dr. Nissen. Most simply put, it is beautifully intelligent and articulate in arguing my case. I am confident that my academic colleagues will recognize what a fine effort the union made on my behalf. (And one can wonder if the university will find it easier in future to recruit eminent scholars now that it is a matter of public record that it is clearly willing to break repeatedly reaffirmed agreements after practically 20 years of top performance.)

In sum, I’ve done what I was hired to do, but FAU has let me down.

To finish the song line: “I’m sticking by the union because the union stuck by me.”

In solidarity,

LESTER