UFF-FAU

United Faculty of Florida-Florida Atlantic University Chapter

  • Mar
    3

    Big job ahead at FAU: New president faces several challengesFlorida Atlantic University’s new president, John Kelly, who has officially begun work, will be paid at least $440,000 his first year, in addition to benefits and retirement compensation, bringing the whole package to a minimum $500,000.

    The FAU Board of Trustees approved Kelly’s five-year contract February 18th, which includes $400,000 base salary and a $40,000 sign-on bonus.

    He is also eligible for a performance bonus of up to $40,000 a year. An additional $60,000 a year will be set aside for retirement compensation.

    Read article at Sun-Sentinel.com

    Download and view PDF of President John Kelly’s Contract

     

    Comments Off

  • Feb
    25

    UFF-FAU is pleased to present a new study commissioned from the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy at Florida International University. The report, “How FAU Prioritizes Its Money,” locates disturbing trends in Florida Atlantic University’s personnel and salary-related budgeting priorities. Taken as a whole, these suggest a developing inability for the institution to adequately service the academic needs of its growing student body.

    For example, between 2006 and 2012 Florida resident-students choosing to attend FAU are paying more than 60% more in tuition. At the same time the student-to-faculty ratio rose by an astounding 19% while administrative positions grew by 12%. In the same period faculty salaries have also decreased, making it more difficult to attract and retain capable instructional and research staff.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Comments Off

  • Nov
    14
    James Tracy — the former faculty union president — spoke to students about issues in higher education on Nov. 5 at a student media roundtable discussion. Photo by Ryan Murphy

    University Press, November 13, 2012

    Some FAU faculty changed their mind on President Mary Jane Saunders in the span of just one year.

    Every year, FAU’s faculty union, a chapter of the United Faculty of Florida (UFF), doles out a survey — granting anonymity — for its faculty to leave comments on higher-ups at the university, including Saunders. Last year, 23 percent of those who participated gave Saunders an unfavorable mark.

    This year? 46 percent.

    “Really, this is the only way faculty can speak their mind without fear of retribution,” said James Tracy, a tenured FAU professor and former UFF-FAU president.

    Chris Robé, a tenured film professor, is the current UFF chapter president, and says one of this year’s survey comments dealt with a disconnect between faculty and administration.

    “Valuing faculty input has been the main, recurrent issue, faculty wanting more interaction with the administration,” Robé said. “They do need to do more for faculty, quite honestly.”

    However, there was a bigger complaint among the comments left. According to Tracy, close to 200 people usually participate in the survey. Out of this year’s 189 commenting faculty, 144 left comments on Saunders, the highest number among FAU’s administration, with many of them expressing disapproval with Saunders’ and her administration’s actions. A sampling of the comments faculty left for her after being asked the question: The university would be better served if President Saunders would…

    • Stop saying everything FAU does is FOR the students when she supports canceling classes that do not have full enrollment. The very idea of canceling a class with a cap of 24 that only has 20 or 21 enrolled is ridiculous. Why don’t we just tell our students to enroll at UCF or FIU in the first place? FAU cares about the students? Saying something doesn’t make it true….
    • Raise academic admission standards–FAU students are not the best and the brightest.
    • Already proving to be the worst president in FAU history. Sorry to be blunt, but the reality of her administration is that she fires people who disagree with her because she can, she surrounds herself by people who fail to give her good advice because she thinks she knows everything, and is so thin-skinned that she cannot make decisions that might make her appear weak, LIKE LISTENING TO THE FACULTY

    Saunders was unable to comment for this story, according to FAU’s Assistant Director of Media Relations Chris Stotz. Because of this, FAU’s Vice President of Communications Scott Silversten wrote a statement to the UP about the faculty survey results:

    “President Saunders values the extraordinary efforts and dedication of FAU’s distinguished faculty. She understands the concerns raised following a difficult year and is dedicated to working with the entire FAU community to meet all of the challenges faced by the Florida State University System.”

    Although Saunders told the Sun Sentinel on Oct. 28, “We’re very sympathetic to the faculty. They’re being asked to do more, and we’re looking for ways to reward them. It’s a difficult financial time.”

    In last year’s UFF survey, former Dean Manjunath Pendakur was hit with negative comments and resigned shortly before it was released. According to Tracy, former FAU President Frank Brogan often had negative comments in the UFF survey, never leading to any change in his job status. In fact, Brogan moved up and is now the chancellor of the Florida State University System.

    When asked whether the 144 comments would impact Saunders, who’s the highest member of the university after the board of trustees, Tracy pondered.

    “Well, change will happen if the administration wants to change,” he said. “And I think, in part, it has to do with the extent to which people are talking about this. But it seems this administration is impervious to any sort of criticism. It seems as if they are to a significant degree. They screwed up the summer completely and there was no sort of apology.”

    Chris Robé had a film appreciation class in the summer that was cancelled after the university announced a $24.7 million budget cut. His class was cancelled when FAU approved a policy requiring at least 24 students register for undergraduate levels and 11 students for graduate level classes.

    “The policy itself was problematic but the implementation was even worse,” Robé said.

    Chris Robé, FAU’s faculty union president, rallied professors outside the Kenneth R. Williams Administration building on April 18 to protest the cuts made to summer classes. Photo by Christine Capozziello

    The university then reopened his class a week before the semester started.

    “Other faculty were going through that too,” Robé said. “I wasn’t the only one.” Susan Reilly, the former director for the School of Communication, also spoke out at the time, saying 14 of her students who registered had their class cut.

    And although Robé credits the university for dealing with the budget cuts, he wonders why the university wasn’t as prepared for them as schools like FIU, who didn’t make class cuts as severe as FAU.

    “That was really, a really traumatic experience for everybody — for students, for the faculty, for everybody,” he said. “That can’t happen again.”

    “It’s passing the buck back and forth, back and forth. It’s worse than it’s ever been,” Tracy said. “I imagine a few years from now, unless there’s some changes that take place, unless the faculty really challenges the administration and asks for their removal, to seriously rethink their management, this place won’t be desirable.”

    Tracy and Robé both led a charge of faculty protesting last spring, all looking for answers. Many had trouble finding them.

    “In our faculty meetings, people were outraged. People have been outraged,” Tracy said. “I’ve been here since 2002 — I haven’t seen this degree of frustration in faculty meetings as I’ve seen here.”

    Despite their frustration, FAU’s faculty — tenured or not, anonymous or not — expect more of the same.

    “The way this administration is, I mean the top level administration, Saunders and so-forth — people who don’t play ball? They’re asked to leave,” Tracy said. “They want people who are compliant. You follow the rules and that’s it. If you ask questions, then you’re out. And I think the deans realize that, plus the deans get three times the salary as a faculty member would get, so they’re willing to just sit there and nod. And that’s essentially what they’re doing.”


    The United Faculty of Florida survey this year also included faculty’s comments about higher-ups throughout FAU. What follows are excerpts of the anonymous comments left for three administrators:

    Provost Brenda Claiborne. Photo courtesy of FAU

    The university would be better served if Provost Brenda Claiborne would:

    • Be fired
    • Resign immediately
    • Trust faculty to make decisions

    The university would be better served if Interim Dean Heather Coltman, College of Arts and Letters would:

    Dean Heather Coltman. Photo courtesy of Media Relations

    • Continue to be the strong advocate for the College that she now appears to be
    • Actually make decisions and stick by them
    • Go back to the classroom

    The university would be better served if Interim Dean Mohammad Llyas, College of Engineering would:

    Dean Mohammad Llyas. Photo courtesy of Media Relations

    • Become the permanent dean
    • Be allowed to function more freely
    • Continue as regular dean

    No Comments

  • Sep
    8

    September 8, 2012. President Saunders panned for “micromanaging” university, disrespect of faculty, lack of transparency and dubious approaches to budget crisis, Provost Claiborne faulted for poor communication with faculty, cutbacks in teaching, and “a swirling vortex of comically stupid [credentialing] decisions.”

    Processing of the 2011-2012 UFF-FAU Faculty Survey on Administrator Performance is now complete. A total of 189 responses were received from faculty at all colleges and FAU campuses. An overall summary of faculty members’ written comments is provided below.

    Word-for-word faculty responses on specific administrators have been published in a password-protected area of the website. Faculty will be provided with a password via email to access these.

    Overview and summary of written comments.

    President Mary J. Saunders received 144 comments, most of them critical of her actions. A strong critique involved the micromanaging of the university and a lack of respect for faculty. One faculty member comments: “She seems very distant from the faculty and speaks in generalities that are very difficult to decipher. She needs to make more of an effort connecting with and explaining herself to faculty, as well as listening more effectively.” Another routine critique was a lack of transparency regarding resources and the academic processes of the university. Faculty have also questioned the viability of the growth of university. As one faculty member writes, “The idea that we can grow our way out of the budget crisis is suspect. Adding students without investing in tenure-line faculty and infrastructure, as Dr. Saunders appears to be doing, degrades the quality of education for our students.” Even sympathetic comments still note she should “consider reducing the salaries and/or numbers of senior administrators on her team” since most faculty, as we will see in the other survey comments, have no idea of the purpose behind many of these new administrative lines.

    Provost Brenda Claiborne received 121 comments. The problematic summer policy dominated many comments and led to a general negative opinion of the provost’s actions. As one faculty members observes, “I had formed no strong opinion until the summer fiasco. The one-size-fits-all plan is illogical and ineffective. This is the first time in my 35 years here that top-down plan has occurred. It makes no sense.” Similarly, another faculty member warns, “Do everything necessary to AVOID cutting classes in a university. It is as if a shoe shop stopped selling shoes.” This policy, according to many faculty, seems to stem from a lack of communication and interaction with faculty. One person notes, “The Provost seems like a very nice person. But she has done a terrible job of communicating with faculty and as a result, her decision-making seems arbitrary and heavy-handed. The debacle around course sizes is only the latest example.” Also, the handling of credentialing was another consistent critique. One person notes, “Having to explain to the provost the basics of a variety of disciplines and how they are run is embarrassing for both the one doing the explanation and the one having to receive it. The appearance of dictatorial actions and coercion has done nothing for the moral[e] of the University.” Another comment: “The accreditation process has already turned into a swirling vortex of comically stupid decisions.” Another comment: “I am also surprised at the level of rigidness in interpreting the SACs directives towards credentialing. When one pulls up the SACS description of credentialing, it is clear that the university is ignoring several paragraphs of discussion regarding appropriate credentials in order to enforce FAU’s mission, whatever that is.” Yet another: “Follow SACS guidelines in the manner that every SACS accredited institution does.” The comments continue. As you know, UFF-FAU has written a report on SACS and requested a meeting with the provost and those in charge of SACS. We are still pressing for a reply and meeting.

    Associate Provost of Northern Campuses Eliah Watlington received around two dozen comments. In general, no one knows who he is and questions the relevancy of the position.

    Associate Provost of Broward Campuses Anthony Abbate received nine comments mostly noting that he needs to be more assertive for faculty rights and “build a stronger sense of identity and community among Broward faculty and students.”

    Interim Vice-President of Research Barry Rosson received 90 comments, all uniformly negative. Many people commented about the seemingly irrelevancy of the graduate college and the endless, meaningless paperwork it blossoms. One faculty member cautions: “Stop building a bureaucratic empire that does nothing but generate paperwork for those of us working in the graduate program.” Another faculty member suggests that Rosson “has made an unbelievable mess out of the Graduate College, screwing-up even the most basic tasks. The labyrinthine and Byzantine forms are an obvious example.” Another faculty encourages: “The Graduate College should be eliminated. It duplicates services. It is unfriendly to students and faculty.”

    Interim Dean of Arts and Letters Heather Coltman received 84 mixed responses. The positive comments suggest that she is doing her best during a very bad financial crisis and a hostile state legislature. One faculty member writes, “She is doing a great job despite these ridiculous financial restrictions.” The negative comments suggest that Dean Coltman lacks the needed experience to function as a Dean and badly represents faculty interests. One faculty member writes, “Interim Dean Coltman is inexperienced, and during her time as dean has been entirely ineffective . . . She has poor judgment, does not understand the academic programs in the college, and has made a series of disastrous decisions.”

    Dean of Undergraduate Studies Ed Pratt received 27 mixed comments. On the positive side faculty believe he “does the best he can in these unsettled times.” On the critical end, faculty believe he needs to show more initiative in “addressing the needs of effective undergraduate education.”

    Dean of the College of Science Gary Perry received 16 comments. Many view him as one of FAU’s best deans. The main negative comments stated that he “should fight for the faculty and students” more.

    Dean of Nursing Marlaine Smith received 8 comments. About half complimented her as an “outstanding, supportive, and generous” dean. Two comments suggested that Smith be more visible among faculty and better listen to them.

    Dean Rosalyn Carter of the College for Design and Social Inquiry received 4 comments. They suggest that Carter act in a more professional manner and involve faculty more in decision-making processes.

    Dean of Business Denis Coates received 7 comments. They generally suggest that Coates needs to work on better managing various departments and improving faculty governance. They also suggest that he needs to better his communication skills.

    Interim Dean of Engineering Mohammad Ilyas received 6 largely positive comments. They suggest he is an excellent leader and would like to see him become permanent dean.

    University Libraries Dean William Miller received 3 comments. They suggest that he needs to be more directly involved in decision-making processes.

    Dean of Education Valerie Bristor received 23 comments. They generally suggest that she needs to better manage the departments and their chairs. Some comments suggest that she was better suited in the role of associate dean.

    Principal Tammy Ferguson of the Henderson School received 7 comments. They were generally positive, but a few suggested that she better communicate with the faculty.

    Dean Jeffrey Buller of the Honors College received 7 comments. They commented on his general absence on the Jupiter campus and the overall resulting demoralization of the college.

    Quantitative Breakdown of Administrator Survey Data

    Link to:

    Heather Coltman, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Letters

    Interim Dean Heather Coltman upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    26 37% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 10% 4-Agree
    10 14% 3-Neutral
    8 11% 2-Disagree
    18 26% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Interim Dean Coltman makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    21 30% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 13% 4-Agree
    7 10% 3-Neutral
    8 11% 2-Disagree
    19 27% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 7% 0-Do Not Know
    Interim Dean Coltman uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    23 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    10 14% 4-Agree
    5 7% 3-Neutral
    11 16% 2-Disagree
    17 24% 1-Strongly Disagree
    3 4% 0-Do Not Know
    Interim Dean Coltman distributes discretionary money fairly.
    10 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    6 9% 4-Agree
    3 4% 3-Neutral
    6 9% 2-Disagree
    15 21% 1-Strongly Disagree
    29 41% 0-Do Not Know
    Interim Dean Coltman is a good administrator.
    20 29% 5-Strongly Agree
    10 14% 4-Agree
    9 13% 3-Neutral
    9 13% 2-Disagree
    17 24% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 1% 0-Do Not Know
    Interim Dean Coltman is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    26 37% 5-Strongly Agree
    8 11% 4-Agree
    4 6% 3-Neutral
    6 9% 2-Disagree
    22 31% 1-Strongly Disagree
    2 3% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Interim Dean Coltman is:
    22 31% 5-Excellent
    11 16% 4-Above Average
    6 9% 3-Average
    8 11% 2-Below Average
    22 31% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    J. Dennis Coates, Dean, College of Business

    Dean J. DENNIS COATES consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    3 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 50% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 6% 2-Disagree
    4 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 6% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    4 22% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 39% 4-Agree
    4 22% 3-Neutral
    1 6% 2-Disagree
    2 11% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    3 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 39% 4-Agree
    1 6% 3-Neutral
    3 17% 2-Disagree
    4 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    4 22% 5-Strongly Agree
    5 28% 4-Agree
    2 11% 3-Neutral
    1 6% 2-Disagree
    4 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 6% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES distributes discretionary money fairly.
    3 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    5 28% 4-Agree
    3 17% 3-Neutral
    1 6% 2-Disagree
    4 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 6% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES is a good administrator.
    4 22% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 39% 4-Agree
    2 11% 3-Neutral
    1 6% 2-Disagree
    4 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean COATES is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    4 22% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 22% 4-Agree
    3 17% 3-Neutral
    3 17% 2-Disagree
    3 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean COATES is:
    4 22% 5-Excellent
    6 33% 4-Above Average
    2 11% 3-Average
    1 6% 2-Below Average
    5 28% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Rosalyn Carter, Dean, College of Design and Social Inquiry

    Dean ROSALYN CARTER consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 14% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    3 43% 2-Disagree
    3 43% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    1 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 14% 4-Agree
    3 43% 3-Neutral
    1 14% 2-Disagree
    1 14% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 14% 4-Agree
    1 14% 3-Neutral
    2 29% 2-Disagree
    3 43% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 29% 4-Agree
    2 29% 3-Neutral
    2 29% 2-Disagree
    1 14% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER distributes discretionary money fairly.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    3 43% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    3 43% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 14% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER is a good administrator.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 14% 4-Agree
    2 29% 3-Neutral
    1 14% 2-Disagree
    3 43% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean CARTER is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 29% 4-Agree
    3 43% 3-Neutral
    2 29% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean CARTER is:
    0 0% 5-Excellent
    2 29% 4-Above Average
    1 14% 3-Average
    0 0% 2-Below Average
    4 57% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Valerie Bristor, College of Education

    Dean VALERIE BRISTOR consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    2 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 30% 4-Agree
    8 27% 3-Neutral
    4 13% 2-Disagree
    7 23% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    2 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    5 17% 4-Agree
    9 30% 3-Neutral
    6 20% 2-Disagree
    7 23% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 3% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    3 10% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 23% 4-Agree
    8 27% 3-Neutral
    5 17% 2-Disagree
    5 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    2 7% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    4 13% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 30% 4-Agree
    8 27% 3-Neutral
    3 10% 2-Disagree
    4 13% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 3% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR distributes discretionary money fairly.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 23% 4-Agree
    7 23% 3-Neutral
    5 17% 2-Disagree
    5 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 17% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR is a good administrator.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 13% 4-Agree
    11 37% 3-Neutral
    10 33% 2-Disagree
    2 7% 1-Strongly Disagree
    2 7% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BRISTOR is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 10% 4-Agree
    6 20% 3-Neutral
    12 40% 2-Disagree
    7 23% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 3% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean BRISTOR is:
    2 7% 5-Excellent
    0 0% 4-Above Average
    14 47% 3-Average
    9 30% 2-Below Average
    5 17% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Mohammad Ilyas, Interim Dean, College of Engineering and Computer Science

    Dean Mohammad Ilyas upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    4 44% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 44% 4-Agree
    1 11% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Ilyas makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    4 44% 5-Strongly Agree
    5 56% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Ilyas uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    4 44% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 33% 4-Agree
    1 11% 3-Neutral
    1 11% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Ilyas distributes discretionary money fairly.
    3 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 22% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    4 44% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Ilyas is a good administrator.
    4 44% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 44% 4-Agree
    1 11% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Ilyas is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    4 44% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 22% 4-Agree
    2 22% 3-Neutral
    1 11% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Ilyas is:
    4 44% 5-Excellent
    4 44% 4-Above Average
    0 0% 3-Average
    1 11% 2-Below Average
    0 0% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Florida Atlantic University Schools

    Principal/Director Ferguson consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    7 58% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 17% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    2 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    9 75% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 17% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    7 58% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    2 17% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    2 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    7 58% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 17% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    2 17% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson distributes discretionary money fairly.
    6 50% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 17% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    2 17% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson is a good administrator.
    9 75% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 8% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Principal/Director Ferguson is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    9 75% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Principal/Director Ferguson is:
    9 75% 5-Excellent
    1 8% 4-Above Average
    1 8% 3-Average
    0 0% 2-Below Average
    1 8% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean GLENN THOMAS consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 25% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    2 17% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    2 17% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    5 42% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 25% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 25% 4-Agree
    3 25% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 25% 4-Agree
    4 33% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS distributes discretionary money fairly.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 25% 4-Agree
    3 25% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS is a good administrator.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    6 50% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Assistant Dean THOMAS is an effective leader who promotes the school.
    3 25% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 33% 4-Agree
    1 8% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    OVERALL, Assistant Dean THOMAS is:
    2 17% 5-Excellent
    5 42% 4-Above Average
    2 17% 3-Average
    1 8% 2-Below Average
    0 0% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 42% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 8% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    1 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    3 25% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 8% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    4 33% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 17% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 8% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    3 25% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor distributes discretionary money fairly.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 42% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor is a good administrator.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    2 17% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    4 33% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Bristor is an effective leader who promotes the school.
    1 8% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    2 17% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    4 33% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Bristor is:
    1 8% 5-Excellent
    0 0% 4-Above Average
    1 8% 3-Average
    1 8% 2-Below Average
    0 0% 1-Poor
    4 33% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Barry Rosson, Graduate College

    Graduate College Dean Barry Rosson consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    3 2% 5-Strongly Agree
    8 5% 4-Agree
    24 16% 3-Neutral
    31 20% 2-Disagree
    50 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    36 24% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Rosson upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    11 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    18 12% 4-Agree
    25 16% 3-Neutral
    26 17% 2-Disagree
    34 22% 1-Strongly Disagree
    38 25% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Rosson uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    3 2% 5-Strongly Agree
    11 7% 4-Agree
    21 14% 3-Neutral
    33 22% 2-Disagree
    44 29% 1-Strongly Disagree
    40 26% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Rosson is a good administrator.
    5 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 6% 4-Agree
    33 22% 3-Neutral
    25 16% 2-Disagree
    43 28% 1-Strongly Disagree
    37 24% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Rosson effectively leads University Graduate education programs and faculty.
    6 4% 5-Strongly Agree
    11 7% 4-Agree
    32 21% 3-Neutral
    23 15% 2-Disagree
    45 30% 1-Strongly Disagree
    32 21% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Rosson competently administers Graduate College operations.
    6 4% 5-Strongly Agree
    11 7% 4-Agree
    30 20% 3-Neutral
    23 15% 2-Disagree
    42 28% 1-Strongly Disagree
    40 26% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Rosson is:
    6 4% 5-Excellent
    6 4% 4-Above Average
    33 22% 3-Average
    23 15% 2-Below Average
    47 31% 1-Poor
    36 24% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Jeffrey Buller, Dean, Honors College

    Dean JEFFREY BULLER consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 50% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    1 17% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    1 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 50% 4-Agree
    0 0% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 17% 4-Agree
    1 17% 3-Neutral
    1 17% 2-Disagree
    3 50% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 33% 4-Agree
    1 17% 3-Neutral
    1 17% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER distributes discretionary money fairly.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 33% 4-Agree
    1 17% 3-Neutral
    1 17% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER is a good administrator.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 17% 4-Agree
    1 17% 3-Neutral
    1 17% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean BULLER is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    0 0% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    2 33% 3-Neutral
    2 33% 2-Disagree
    2 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean BULLER is:
    0 0% 5-Excellent
    1 17% 4-Above Average
    2 33% 3-Average
    0 0% 2-Below Average
    3 50% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    William Miller, Dean, University Libraries

    Dean William Miller upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    1 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 33% 4-Agree
    1 33% 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 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    1 33% 3-Neutral
    1 33% 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.
    1 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    1 33% 3-Neutral
    1 33% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Miller distributes discretionary money fairly.
    1 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    1 33% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Miller is a good administrator.
    1 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 33% 4-Agree
    1 33% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 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 33% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 33% 4-Agree
    1 33% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Miller is:
    1 33% 5-Excellent
    1 33% 4-Above Average
    1 33% 3-Average
    0 0% 2-Below Average
    0 0% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    David J. Bjorkman, Dean, College of Medicine

    No Results

    top

    Marlaine Smith, Dean, College of Nursing

    Dean Marlaine Smith upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    5 63% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 13% 4-Agree
    1 13% 3-Neutral
    1 13% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Smith makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    1 13% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 38% 4-Agree
    3 38% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 13% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Smith uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    2 25% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 38% 4-Agree
    2 25% 3-Neutral
    1 13% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Smith distributes discretionary money fairly.
    2 25% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 13% 4-Agree
    2 25% 3-Neutral
    1 13% 2-Disagree
    1 13% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 13% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Smith is a good administrator.
    2 25% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 38% 4-Agree
    2 25% 3-Neutral
    1 13% 2-Disagree
    0 0% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Smith is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    3 38% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 25% 4-Agree
    2 25% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    1 13% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Smith is:
    2 25% 5-Excellent
    3 38% 4-Above Average
    2 25% 3-Average
    1 13% 2-Below Average
    0 0% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Gary Perry, Dean, College of Science

    Dean Gary Perry upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    12 50% 5-Strongly Agree
    5 21% 4-Agree
    2 8% 3-Neutral
    4 17% 2-Disagree
    1 4% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Perry makes personnel decisions in a professional, unbiased manner.
    10 42% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 17% 4-Agree
    5 21% 3-Neutral
    3 13% 2-Disagree
    2 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Perry uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    7 29% 5-Strongly Agree
    7 29% 4-Agree
    3 13% 3-Neutral
    3 13% 2-Disagree
    1 4% 1-Strongly Disagree
    3 13% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Perry distributes discretionary money fairly.
    4 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    6 25% 4-Agree
    1 4% 3-Neutral
    2 8% 2-Disagree
    4 17% 1-Strongly Disagree
    7 29% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Perry is a good administrator.
    11 46% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 17% 4-Agree
    4 17% 3-Neutral
    2 8% 2-Disagree
    2 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    1 4% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Perry is an effective leader who promotes the college/unit.
    13 54% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 13% 4-Agree
    2 8% 3-Neutral
    3 13% 2-Disagree
    3 13% 1-Strongly Disagree
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Perry is:
    11 46% 5-Excellent
    3 13% 4-Above Average
    4 17% 3-Average
    3 13% 2-Below Average
    3 13% 1-Poor
    0 0% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Edward Pratt, Dean, Undergraduate Studies

    Undergraduate Studies Dean Edward Pratt consults faculty/staff before making important decisions.
    16 11% 5-Strongly Agree
    33 23% 4-Agree
    20 14% 3-Neutral
    23 16% 2-Disagree
    12 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    42 29% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Pratt upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    25 17% 5-Strongly Agree
    33 22% 4-Agree
    29 20% 3-Neutral
    13 9% 2-Disagree
    12 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    35 24% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Pratt uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    20 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    29 20% 4-Agree
    21 14% 3-Neutral
    13 9% 2-Disagree
    10 7% 1-Strongly Disagree
    52 36% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Pratt is a good administrator.
    21 15% 5-Strongly Agree
    34 24% 4-Agree
    26 18% 3-Neutral
    14 10% 2-Disagree
    10 7% 1-Strongly Disagree
    39 27% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Pratt effectively leads undergraduate programs and faculty.
    20 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    33 23% 4-Agree
    24 16% 3-Neutral
    16 11% 2-Disagree
    12 8% 1-Strongly Disagree
    41 28% 0-Do Not Know
    Dean Pratt competently administers Undergraduate Studies operations.
    23 16% 5-Strongly Agree
    34 23% 4-Agree
    20 14% 3-Neutral
    17 12% 2-Disagree
    9 6% 1-Strongly Disagree
    44 30% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Dean Pratt is:
    22 15% 5-Excellent
    32 22% 4-Above Average
    27 19% 3-Average
    13 9% 2-Below Average
    11 8% 1-Poor
    39 27% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Anthony Abbatte, Associate Provost of the Broward Campuses (Answers provided by faculty from the Broward Campuses.)

    Associate Provost of Broward Campuses Anthony Abbatte is a good administrator.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    4 10% 4-Agree
    9 23% 3-Neutral
    1 3% 2-Disagree
    1 3% 1-Strongly Disagree
    23 59% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Abbatte uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 5% 4-Agree
    5 14% 3-Neutral
    1 3% 2-Disagree
    2 5% 1-Strongly Disagree
    26 70% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Abbatte keeps faculty informed about decisions.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 10% 4-Agree
    7 17% 3-Neutral
    1 14% 2-Disagree
    6 21% 1-Strongly Disagree
    16 34% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Abbatte ensures that campus fiscal resources are appropriately allotted and expended.
    2 6% 5-Strongly Agree
    0 0% 4-Agree
    5 15% 3-Neutral
    0 0% 2-Disagree
    3 9% 1-Strongly Disagree
    23 70% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Abbatte is competent in overseeing daily campus operations.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 3% 4-Agree
    4 13% 3-Neutral
    2 6% 2-Disagree
    2 6% 1-Strongly Disagree
    22 69% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Abbatte is an effective leader who promotes the development of the campus
    2 6% 5-Strongly Agree
    1 3% 4-Agree
    5 15% 3-Neutral
    2 6% 2-Disagree
    2 6% 1-Strongly Disagree
    21 64% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Associate Provost Abbatte is:
    1 3% 5-Excellent
    1 3% 4-Above Average
    6 18% 3-Average
    2 6% 2-Below Average
    2 6% 1-Poor
    21 63% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Eliah Watlington, Associate Provost of the Northern Campuses (Answers provided by faculty from the Northern Campuses.)

    Associate Provost of Northern Campuses Eliah Watlington is a good administrator.
    4 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 7% 4-Agree
    4 14% 3-Neutral
    2 7% 2-Disagree
    4 14% 1-Strongly Disagree
    13 45% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Watlington uses faculty governance processes to make decisions in a collegial manner.
    2 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 10% 4-Agree
    4 14% 3-Neutral
    3 10% 2-Disagree
    2 7% 1-Strongly Disagree
    15 52% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Watlington keeps faculty informed about decisions.
    1 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 10% 4-Agree
    5 17% 3-Neutral
    4 14% 2-Disagree
    6 21% 1-Strongly Disagree
    10 34% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Watlington ensures that campus fiscal resources are appropriately allotted and expended.
    2 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    3 10% 4-Agree
    3 10% 3-Neutral
    3 10% 2-Disagree
    3 10% 1-Strongly Disagree
    15 52% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Watlington is competent in overseeing daily campus operations.
    2 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 7% 4-Agree
    3 11% 3-Neutral
    4 15% 2-Disagree
    3 11% 1-Strongly Disagree
    13 48% 0-Do Not Know
    Associate Provost Watlington is an effective leader who promotes the development of the campus
    3 11% 5-Strongly Agree
    2 7% 4-Agree
    1 4% 3-Neutral
    6 21% 2-Disagree
    5 18% 1-Strongly Disagree
    11 39% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Associate Provost Watlington is:
    2 7% 5-Excellent
    2 7% 4-Above Average
    2 7% 3-Average
    7 24% 2-Below Average
    5 17% 1-Poor
    11 38% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Brenda Claiborne, University Provost

    Provost Brenda Claiborne is a good administrator.
    9 5% 5-Strongly Agree
    10 6% 4-Agree
    42 24% 3-Neutral
    36 21% 2-Disagree
    52 30% 1-Strongly Disagree
    26 15% 0-Do Not Know
    Provost Claiborne uses faculty governance processes to make decisions.
    6 3% 5-Strongly Agree
    9 5% 4-Agree
    32 18% 3-Neutral
    34 20% 2-Disagree
    64 37% 1-Strongly Disagree
    29 17% 0-Do Not Know
    Provost Claiborne keeps faculty informed about decisions.
    10 6% 5-Strongly Agree
    23 14% 4-Agree
    32 19% 3-Neutral
    30 18% 2-Disagree
    56 34% 1-Strongly Disagree
    14 8% 0-Do Not Know
    Provost Claiborne makes sure that Vice-Presidents and Deans make fair decisions.
    4 2% 5-Strongly Agree
    6 4% 4-Agree
    30 18% 3-Neutral
    20 12% 2-Disagree
    55 32% 1-Strongly Disagree
    55 32% 0-Do Not Know
    Provost Claiborne upholds academic standards and maintains a scholarly atmosphere.
    10 6% 5-Strongly Agree
    20 12% 4-Agree
    38 22% 3-Neutral
    30 18% 2-Disagree
    48 28% 1-Strongly Disagree
    24 14% 0-Do Not Know
    Provost Claiborne is an effective leader who promotes the development of the University.
    8 5% 5-Strongly Agree
    10 6% 4-Agree
    32 19% 3-Neutral
    34 20% 2-Disagree
    59 35% 1-Strongly Disagree
    28 16% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, Provost Claiborne is:
    9 5% 5-Excellent
    8 5% 4-Above Average
    39 23% 3-Average
    30 18% 2-Below Average
    59 35% 1-Poor
    26 15% 0-Do Not Know

    top

    Mary Jane Saunders, University President

    President Mary Jane Saunders makes sure that administrators make decisions fairly and in the best interests of the University.
    11 6% 5-Strongly Agree
    32 19% 4-Agree
    35 20% 3-Neutral
    35 20% 2-Disagree
    45 26% 1-Strongly Disagree
    14 8% 0-Do Not Know
    President Saunders makes decisions that are in the best interests of the faculty and professional staff.
    13 7% 5-Strongly Agree
    18 10% 4-Agree
    38 22% 3-Neutral
    44 25% 2-Disagree
    57 33% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 3% 0-Do Not Know
    President Saunders upholds academic standards and encourages a scholarly atmosphere.
    21 12% 5-Strongly Agree
    40 23% 4-Agree
    36 21% 3-Neutral
    24 14% 2-Disagree
    48 28% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 3% 0-Do Not Know
    President Saunders is an effective leader who promotes the development of the University.
    24 14% 5-Strongly Agree
    37 22% 4-Agree
    34 20% 3-Neutral
    22 13% 2-Disagree
    51 29% 1-Strongly Disagree
    5 3% 0-Do Not Know
    Overall, President Saunders is:
    13 7% 5-Excellent
    36 21% 4-Above Average
    41 24% 3-Average
    29 17% 2-Below Average
    50 29% 1-Poor
    5 3% 0-Do Not Know

    Comments Off

  • Sep
    1

    September 1, 2012. Welcome back to the Idea Factory! What’s on the horizon for FAU faculty this coming fall.

    Welcome back to the Idea Factory. The distant metallic sound you might hear is the sharpening of knives by some of our state overlords in Tallahassee in the hopes of gutting public education and unions once and for all. Our governor established a Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform in May. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the panel’s main task is “to identify ways to make the state’s higher education systems more efficient.” This euphemism of “efficiency” hangs in the air like a toxic cloud barely covering the cost-cutting and privatizing of public education that lurks beneath it. We have seen efficiency at work in inflating class caps, gouging students for higher tuitions, increasing course loads, questioning the viability of tenure, and demonizing faculty and faculty unions.

    We expect to see anti-union legislation making the rounds in Tallahassee again this year. Two bills likely to appear this year will eliminate payroll deduction of union dues and also decertify unions with less than 50% membership. At FAU we are currently hovering at 40%. We need to make our numbers 50% by the end of the academic year so that faculty can be adequately represented on the campus and within the state. You can print a union membership form at the bottom of the webpage: http://www.uff-fau.org/?p=16. Send it to Chris Robé CU 214 on the Boca campus.

    On the state level, UFF’s lawsuit (through our affiliate, the Florida Education Association) regarding the 3% FRS deduction will be going before the state supreme court this fall. Although the defendants wanted to drag the case out, our attorneys fast-tracked it to the supreme court since we won an overwhelmingly positive verdict from a circuit court judge who decreed the deduction unconstitutional. If we win the following case, a challenge to the 2.5% ORP deduction is soon to follow. Remember, your union dues help pay for actions like this that protect your paycheck.

    On the campus level, we have been bargaining since spring. More details are available on the flip-side of this broadsheet regarding our process. Some issues we have stressed are raises/equity (as always), parental leave, partner benefits, and promotional raises for instructors and lecturers.

    Also, after receiving numerous complaints from faculty regarding internal SACS accreditation, UFF-FAU has compiled a report based on faculty comments and submitted it to the provost and others in charge of SACS accreditation on August 14. We are waiting to hear back from them to schedule a meeting regarding our concerns and recommendations. You can read the report on the UFF-FAU website (www.uff-fau.org).

    The instructor/lecturer promotional structure has now been put in place. Your departments/schools should have determined the criteria for promotion last spring. If they have not, please let us know. UFF-FAU has contacted the provost to determine submission deadlines for instructor/lecturer promotional materials. We are still awaiting an answer. We will let you know as soon as we hear back from them. Also, we would like to hold a workshop for all instructors/lecturers going up for promotion this year this fall, depending upon the due date of materials.

    The UFF-FAU new faculty luncheon will be held in the Board of Trustees’ Room (3rd floor Administration Building) on September 14, 11:30-1:30 PM. This is open to all faculty. We encourage you to bring new faculty and/or non-union members to the luncheon. UFF-FAU will update you on our actions as well as answer any questions you might have. Also, the statewide UFF Senate will be held in Tampa on September 22-23. This is open to all UFF senators, bargaining team members, and EC members. It serves as a valuable forum to network with other UFF chapters to compare issues and concerns.

    UFF-FAU wants to hold a speaker series each semester. We are looking for faculty input on who to invite. The talks can range from pragmatic matters (e.g. “What are my retirement benefits?”) to broader concerns (e.g. “How is public education being eviscerated?”). Please email your suggestions to president(at)uff-fau.org.

    We will also be releasing the administrative survey in the next few weeks. Be on the lookout.

    Finally, we are always looking for faculty to get involved. Half of the union’s task is advocating on behalf of the faculty’s collective interests. But this advocacy becomes hollow if we don’t have faculty actively supporting the union by getting involved. The first step is joining. But the next step is participating in the union with whatever unique skills you possess. We can always use more bargainers, grievance representatives, recruiters, writers, artists, mathematicians, and the like. You can dedicate as much or as little time as you have available. But dedicating some time is of the utmost importance.

    Since we would like to have our union density over 50% by the end of this academic year, we need faculty who are willing to recruit: going to other faculty offices and speaking to colleagues about their concerns and how they intersect with union goals. Please write to me at president(at)uff-fau.org if you are interested. If we have enough people interested, we will hold a recruiting workshop this fall. Look forward to seeing you soon!

    Comments Off

  • Aug
    14

    August 14, 2012. Union receives numerous complaints alleging FAU administrators’ arbitrary application of SACS accreditation procedures, Faculty cite potential attempts to undermine curricular decision-making

    After receiving several complaints from faculty regarding the SACS accreditation process, UFF-FAU sent out a general query to all faculty on July 18, 2012 to investigate additional faculty concerns regarding the process and compile a general report. As of August 8, 2012, we have received a total of 33 responses that stretch across all of the colleges of the university.

    We highlight here some of your major concerns as well as suggested remedies. We hope to meet the administration soon regarding this issue to make the accreditation process more equitable and fair. If anyone has any additional concerns not addressed here, feel free to contact UFF-FAU at: president (at) uff-fau.org.

    Two of the most prevalent concerns relate to the administration’s very limited understanding of some of the academic disciplines being accredited. The first relates to the fetishization of faculty holding 18 graduate credit hours in their teaching discipline. At its worst, this has been read extremely narrowly to mean that if faculty have not taken the actual courses they teach, they are not qualified to offer them now.

    This becomes a problem for older faculty whose fields have dramatically changed over the decades. For example, communication faculty who were granted Ph.D.s prior to 1990 probably have never had a course on the internet. Yet it would be laughable to suggest that older faculty in the field could not offer a course on internet technology since their graduate work did not include it.

    Even more seriously, such a literal and deterministic link between graduate coursework and the courses faculty teach fails to understand the fundamental ways in which faculty interests and research diverge and develop after graduate school. As one faculty member writes, “Our business is by its very nature much more fluid, and we are expected to expand our own horizons and go beyond our current limits through our own, self-directed research and teaching precisely because we are in higher education.”

    Another faculty member notes, “It is not unusual for any faculty over the long trajectory of their careers to pick up some new thread, new idea, and conduct research and teach. The society and students benefit by such advances and so does the university from all the new expertise that is added to the field(s).”

    Yet another senior colleague stresses: “If the idea is to make sure that we deliver ‘cutting edge’ programming to our students, then we have to consider the wisdom of linking credentials so heavily to one’s transcript. For those of us who graduated over 15 or 20 years ago, if we are still teaching what is on our transcript, then we have a problem; indeed—in some cases that should be grounds for not being allowed to teach a course!”

    A major portion of faculty time is spent producing new knowledge, yet some administrators seem to think that this new knowledge will have no effect on the courses we teach, even after decades of social and curricular change. To not respond to the changes in our fields through our scholarship and teaching would quickly relegate FAU to irrelevancy.

    This becomes a particular issue for interdisciplinary-based departments where faculty with degrees from different fields are often hired. Although such issues should be easily resolved by appealing to department chairs’ and faculty members’ expertise within the specific fields of study, this knowledge-base has been at times ignored by FAU accreditors. As one faculty member noted, “Part of the problem involved the reviewer creating her own definition of what our professional discipline is and is not.”

    Due to faulty assumptions based on administrators’ limited outside knowledge of the field, faculty members have wrongly been penalized by being de-accredited. Another faculty member well summarized, “I want to believe that when faculty are hired, they are hired based on their credentials. I also want to believe that those who hire faculty know what they are doing. To see the judgment and procedures of colleagues, the colleges, and the departments that hire us being questioned is upsetting and an insult to their judgment, their hiring practices, and their academic integrity.”

    The implications of such actions threaten the curricular autonomy of the departments themselves. As yet another faculty member questions, “If faculty who were assumed to be suited for a course by the program area faculty and/or chair are now deemed unsuited for such an assignment, what are the implications for the curriculum over which faculty have jurisdiction? Is this not an indirect infringement on faculty’s right to make curricular decisions?” The union would argue that it indeed is and that it weakens the stature of the entire university.

    To exemplify the problem we would like to offer a case study of Judith Burganger, a full professor who has been at FAU since 1980. Burganger had served as Eminent Chair at Texas Tech and as Artist Lecturer at Carnegie Mellon University. In April, her credentialing was challenged by FAU administrators for the very courses that she had developed for the university and that were essential for graduation through the degree program.

    To make matters worse, she had a series of graduate students attending FAU to study with her and who had rejected acceptances at other prestigious universities. It is difficult to understand how the credentialing process in this case has strengthened FAU at all. It has challenged decade’s worth of work Burganger has produced, the tenure-and-promotion process, promotion to full professor, the expertise of outside institutions, and the intelligence of students from other institutions who want to study with her. Although this is an extreme instance of the internal accreditation process demonstrating startling ignorance and a usurpation of legitimate authority, it reveals the absurdity to which it has been carried. (We have just learned this morning that Judith has finally been accredited after a four month process).

    We have also had repeated complaints about how faculty with degrees from universities outside the U.S. have been challenged to justify the credibility of such a degree. Although one want to believe that there must be some legitimate reason for questioning such degrees, faculty members have not been told what those reasons are. As a result, the process seems xenophobic to many by singling out faculty who have not received degrees within the United States and contradicting the very mission of diversity that FAU supposedly upholds.

    This relates to a larger issue of tone: tenured and non-tenured faculty have routinely felt their jobs threatened by the accreditation process. Rather than consisting of a dialogue between faculty and accreditors with the goal of explaining and understanding the specificity of disciplines and their requirements, the process has instead placed faculty on the receiving end of emails that demand transcripts, articles, CVs, and the like with little-to-no explanation and within unrealistically short deadlines.

    The union has repeatedly received accounts of faculty unable to concentrate on research or other demands due to the fear inspired by such unilateral demands. Rather than being a collegial process between the faculty and administration, accreditation has deteriorated into what some faculty perceive as nothing less than an inquisition where you are presumed guilty before proving yourself innocent, where you are first decredentialed and then asked questions later, if at all.

    Recommendations:

    UFF-FAU offers the following recommendations to improve the credentialing process making it a less stressful and more equitable for all faculty:

    1)      The Provost needs to issue clear and precise credentialing guidelines regarding how the administration is interpreting SACS accreditation. This should then be distributed to all faculty and administrators. This will provide an even playing field for all to understand how they are being judged and what requirements they need to meet.

    2)      Chairs’ justifications need to be heeded. The union has heard many accounts of chairs having to repeatedly justify certain faculty members’ credentialing. This is an immense waste of time and resources. Academic specialization and expertise should guide the process. If there is a disagreement, the burden of proof should lie on those outside of the field of study. The departments and schools hold a much fuller and more nuanced understanding of their fields of study than does any outside individual. Therefore, the accreditation process needs to harness such information in order to properly proceed and offer evaluations.

    3)      Tone/time: These issues seem to be related. Because of the short timelines being given to faculty members to produce materials, the tone of emails from administrators becomes curt and inhospitable. This becomes a traumatic experience for some faculty members, so they should not only be given adequate time to collect such materials, but should also be entitled to a full explanation of why such materials are needed in the first place.

    Although we understand that the administration is under immense pressure from the state to justify the very existence of public education and the role of universities, eviscerating departmental integrity and demoralizing faculty through the accreditation process is not the best way to proceed.

    The process should be a dialogue between faculty and administration about the particularities of academic disciplines and how faculty research, creative work, and teaching might or might not fit into the historical and theoretical components of said disciplines. But instead it has at times degenerated into a one-size-fits-all process where accreditation guidelines remain unclear and the challenges seem based on unexamined assumptions and inadequate knowledge of the discipline.

    At a time when the Governor and the Florida Legislature regularly demonstrate their ignorance of and hostility to the basic tenets of higher education, it is especially important that administrators do not abandon their defense of the university and the faculty who comprise its core.

    As a result, it is crucial that administrators do not pretend that they alone can evaluate faculty credentials without doing serious damage to the diversity and creativity of the faculty’s work. We look forward to working with the administration to resolve these issues. We will keep faculty updated regarding the administration’s response and seeking your further input and participation to assist in improving the accreditation process.

    Comments Off

  • Jun
    11

    June 11, 2012. Provost Brenda Claiborne announces significant changes to Promotion and Tenure policy without notifying UFF or faculty governance bodies

    Dear Colleagues,

    It has recently come to the union’s attention that the provost  released a May 31, 2012 memo regarding Promotion and Tenure (P&T). Particular notice should be given to section 9 where the external letters of recommendation have increased from 3 to 5. The union has recently contacted the provost stating that the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically speaks to procedures that need to be followed in making changes to P&T criteria. Specifically, according to Article 14.2 (b) and Article 15.1 (c)(4) two things must occur first before modifying criteria:

    1)  “The Board and the University may modify these criteria after notifying the UFF Chapter of the proposed changes and offering an opportunity to discuss them in consultation with the President or representative.” UFF has not been notified.

    2)  “Any proposal to develop or modify promotion criteria shall be available for discussion by members of the affected departments/units  before adoption.” Faculty have not had any option to discuss this either. The union has never been made aware of such changes and needs to discuss them before any type of adoption takes place. Since the number of external letters was increased from two to three just two years ago after undergoing a comprehensive review by the University Committee, we need to understand the reasoning behind the increase of two additional letters in such a short amount of time.

    In regards to the second issue review by members of the affected departments most faculty are not under contract right now so they are not obligated nor might not have adequate time to review the proposed changes. Either way, they were not given the opportunity. UFF suggests that administration should at least wait until the beginning of the fall semester to discuss these changes when faculty are under contract and present so they can discuss such issues as a group. Additionally, the administration needs time to allow the University Committee to meet to discuss any such changes.

    If the administration fails to comply with the terms and conditions in the CBA, the union will then contact our legal counsel and proceed accordingly.

    Furthermore, faculty should be aware that if any changes do take place, according to the CBA, Article 15.1 (4) states that such changes don’t become effective until a year after their adoption. Also, “an employee with at least three (3) years of tenure-earning credit as of the date on which the tenure criteria are adopted shall be evaluated for tenure under the criteria as they existed prior to modification” unless the employee chooses otherwise.

    The CBA serves as a foundational document in such matters of P&T. This is yet another way in which the union protects the integrity of such processes. If you haven’t done so, join today. Download a membership form and send it to: Chris Robe’, CU 214, Boca Raton campus.

    We are here when you aren’t making sure that protocols are followed. Join and become active in the union today.

    Best,
    Chris

    UFF-FAU President

    No Comments

  • May
    29

    May 29, 2012. After a hasty reorganization of the College of Engineering three years ago FAU administrators summarily fired five tenured faculty members

    UFF Will Fight Layoffs of Tenured Professors

    June 3, 2009. It is not the easiest thing to introduce oneself in the midst of a crisis, so I will hold off on such formalities for now. On Friday, May 29 three Associate Professors and two Full Professors in the College of Engineering received layoff notices effective August 8th. All five faculty members were tenured. This action by the FAU Administration is a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which stipulates a seniority process in the event of layoffs and requires that tenured and tenure-track faculty be given one year notification prior to termination. Moreover, with plenty of funds in reserve FAU administrators cannot claim financial urgency, which would in fact be a precondition of such drastic action.

    UFF-FAU intends to fight for these faculty members through the grievance process assured under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Without the CBA there would be little recourse for faculty aside from costly legal battles, and virtually nothing would stand in the way of the administration terminating even wider swaths of faculty.

    The would be necessity of FAU’s “reorganization” and resultant layoffs of faculty and staff rests on administrators’ argument that the institution is suffering from a shortage of recurring state funds. Shortly after postponing a 10% salary increase of his own after faculty criticism, President Frank Brogan seldom missed an opportunity to make proclamations of future job losses and overall financial austerity. Yet here’s the rub: FAU is sitting on over $70 million in reserves–enough for independent authorities and a Special Magistrate to conclude in March that the university was capable of a minimum salary increase for all faculty of 150% more than it grudgingly granted in April (1%). Further, UFF-FAU’s study, How is the Money Spent? FAU Expenditures on Faculty and Higher Level Administration in the Period from 2001-02 to 2008-09, provides solid evidence of the growth of administrative positions and salaries versus those who actually see the inside of a classroom.

    To be sure, the Florida legislature has cut its support to state universities, but there are no cutbacks in the 2009-10 budget, and past shortfalls will to a significant degree be made up for in tuition increases and federal stimulus money–the latter of which is specifically intended to prevent layoffs.

    When a family loses a small portion of its income it must turn to some of its reserves in order to sustain its normal functioning. No self-respecting family would think of putting its children up for adoption or placing them on the auction block as a result of such circumstances, particularly if it’s sitting on millions of dollars. In a similar vein, when a university invites a scholar to fill a tenure-track post and grants her tenure it makes that individual part of its family–bestowing the assurance of some job security as a reward for dedication and hard work. This is what five of our fellow faculty members believed before May 29. By terminating tenured faculty the FAU administration has sown the seeds of distrust and fear among those who carry on the institution’s most important work–teaching, research, and service. Unfortunately, under the present administration this is only a small foretaste of what is likely in store. If you are not already a member I encourage you to consider joining UFF-FAU today.

    In solidarity,

    James Tracy
    UFF-FAU President

    See related posts:

    No Comment: 2009

    CHE News Blog: Union Protests Layoff of Five Tenured Professors as Florida Atlantic U. Slashes Its Budget

    Shake Hands with the Devil

    Engineering Faculty Vents Frustration

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

    Comments Off

  • May
    16
    May 16, 2012. University Press publishes revealing exposé on Florida Atlantic University’s Board of Trustees, “[H]alf the board members have bankruptcy filings, foreclosures, or other financial problems in their past.”
    FAU Board of Trustees group photoThe Board of Trustees with President Mary Jane Saunders (center). Photo courtesy of FAU Media Relations.

    Experience. Leadership. Management. Philanthropy. Awards.

    These are the words FAU’s Board of Trustees members used to describe themselves when they applied to join the board.

    Bankruptcy filings. Foreclosures. Tax warrants. Court orders to pay debts.

    These are the words they neglected to mention.

    As FAU’s highest-ranking leaders, the trustees make FAU’s biggest financial and academic decisions. Their actions affect the entire university community — students, faculty, administrators, staff, alumni.

    But a University Press investigation also found federal lawsuits, job performance complaints, a federal tax lien, and an eviction order in their past.

    Read more at upressonline.com

    No Comments

  • May
    14

    May 14, 2012. The faculty protest in late April was a last resort after the non-responsiveness of FAU administrators. What did we achieve?

    First of all, I would thank all faculty and staff who participated in the summer teaching protest held on April 18. As you all know, the protest just didn’t concern itself with summer teaching, but more importantly the way in which faculty have been systematically excluded from most decision-making processes recently implemented by the upper administration. Only after the fact is faculty input solicited. We are hoping as a result of such negative publicity that the administration will start implementing policies where faculty have been an integral part from the inception. I will be meeting with the provost later this month to discuss this problem and see how we can move forward regarding this.

    The union doesn’t take protesting lightly. We have attempted to use other more formal channels– consultation, meeting with the upper administration through more informal settings, asking questions during faculty assemblies and the senate, but felt that our concerns were not being taken seriously. As a result, we felt that we had no option other than focusing the public eye on the ways in which faculty, students, and staff feel how that the university has been mismanaged.  In this effort we were successful.  In addition to attracting at least seventy faculty, staff and students to our protest rally on the 18th, and helping students publicize their own earlier protest rally, we received good publicity in a variety of media.   See the links to local media in previous posts on the protests here at uff-fau.org.

    The results were  productive:

    1)      We finally received a belated memo from the administration on April  10 regarding the rationale for the implementation of summer policy.

    2)      Administrators started to reinstitute courses more promptly.

    3)      The administration publicly acknowledged that the implementation of the summer policy was misguided.

    4)      After repeated calls by the union since Fall 2011 for a Town Hall Budget meeting, the upper administration finally held one. The result  was far from satisfactory. Although we would much rather have had the President and the Provost directly fielding questions, the meeting at  least provided a public forum where faculty could directly address some of their concerns and judge for themselves the adequacy of the responses.

    But of course the proof is in the proverbial pudding. We’ll see how future administrative policies are made and implemented and if faculty governance and knowledge is respected. We understand that FAU has been placed in a difficult economic situation because of the hostility by many in the state legislature in regards toward public education.

    This damage has been compounded by misguided policies on the local level that seem distinctly out of touch with faculty concerns and expertise and thus destructive of some core goals of the university, its discipline-specific teaching and research programs. But for now we look to the future by attempting to establish a more  functional and balanced relationship with the upper administration. As you know, the union provides a forum for the only independent collective voice of the faculty. But only faculty can make this voice be adequately heard not only by joining the union, but also by becoming more involved in it.

    The union repeatedly and rigorously addresses issues that many faculty members articulate to one another but might be uncomfortable pronouncing on their own to the administration.  But the union gives you an independent, collective  voice across department, college and campus boundaries. Your involvement makes us a more effective, democratic, well-informed, and vigorous university. Please download a membership form by clicking here today. Send to Chris Robe’, FAU, CU 215, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

    Have a good summer!

    Chris

    No Comments

Next UFF-FAU Bargaining Meetings

TBA

Become a Member 

join now

UFF President

Chris Robé
School of Communication
561-297-1306
president@uff-fau.org

Other Officers

Message from the President