UFF-FAU

August 2, 2010. Bargaining Team appreciative of 2010-11 three percent salary increase offer, Asks for modest 2009-10 half-percent increase to achieve greater parity with salary growth of administrators and other out-of-unit employees.

After the announcement of raises for out-of-unit employees by the administration, I know that many of you have been anxiously awaiting resolution of the bargaining contract for unionized employees.  I would like to share with you where we are in the process.

We have reached agreement on most of the articles in the contract.  The two contentious issues that remain are Salaries and Reserved Management Rights.  You can read the proposed Article 4 here. We are concerned that a significant expansion of management rights has been proposed and we strongly object to the insertion of their interpretation of case law into the agreement.

On salaries, the latest administration proposal for in-unit employees includes a 3% increase in base salaries.  The proposed increases would be effective at the start of the 2010-2011 academic year.  The increase would be distributed as follows: a 1% retention increase for all faculty with satisfactory evaluations, a 1% increase for meritorious performance, and a 1% increase for performance based market equity.  These are the three categories that we have traditionally tried to secure increases in.  We are satisfied with these increases for 2010-2011, but we remain concerned with how to adequately compensate faculty for 2009-10. The administration has proposed no increases for 2009-10.

The popular perception is that the University was dealing with a dire budget situation in 2009-10 which prompted tenured faculty layoffs without adequate notice and numerous special meetings to discuss the budget.  We have just learned, however, that during the same period, many administrators and other out of unit employees received special pay increases whose total exceeded $500,000.   These special raises were in addition to pay increases for promotions and job reassignments.  We believe that in-unit employees deserve similar compensation and have offered to settle for an additional 0.5% increase, for a total increase of 3.5%.

In the next couple of weeks we hope to share the data on pay raises in 2009-10 for out-of-unit and in-unit employees with the faculty community and solicit your input on salaries through an online survey.  Based on those findings, we hope to conclude negotiations soon after the start of the Fall semester.

In Solidarity,

Sharmila Vishwasrao

For 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

May 1, 2010. Time to hunker down! FAU Administrators appear to be laying groundwork for reorganization and faculty layoffs.

“’Knock-knock-knock!’ Professor Tracy, are you in?” someone calls outside my office door. “Oh, yes,” I reply. “But like most other faculty, I’m hiding underneath my desk, waiting for FAU’s reorganization, where I may or may not find myself booted from the the University plane and careening toward earth with little-if-any parachute.”

These are, after all, tough times, or so we are told. Faculty and staff must once again pull in their belts, our well-compensated leaders tell us. Pay no attention to that pesky 2009 Financial Audit that shows the University’s $20 million increase in unrestricted net assets as it proceeded to terminate tenured faculty. That’s a tidy sum that would easily allow for a much-needed salary increase for Florida’s most poorly paid professors who reside in the state’s highest cost-of-living region. In fact, the administration is moving in the opposite direction, opening what will likely be a costly medical school and anxiously looking to place a whopping $60 million for a football stadium onto the University’s credit card. This is not to mention that administrator positions have grown far beyond those of instructional faculty since the early 2000s.

Augustine once remarked that hope has two beautiful daughters. One is anger and the other is courage. For most FAU faculty faced with the facts yet also demoralized and dealing with “battered faculty syndrome,” it is understandable to be hope-less. In fact, staying underneath one’s desk in these turbulent times certainly isn’t courageous, but it’s not entirely unwise either. Heck, it’s gettin’ ugly out there.

Consider the pronouncements of Interim President John Pritchett, who at a forum on the budget on April 5 told faculty that “layoffs are still on the table.” Such threats will likely be repeated at the May 3rd forum. Last October, however, Pritchett remarked in the College of Arts and Letters Faculty Assembly that if you “were to read a certain blog” (the one you’re presently reading, by the way) you’d think layoffs were right around the corner. What a bunch of alarmists—those union folk!  The Interim President continued to emphasize to those gathered that there would be no layoffs. Instead, administrators simply wanted to reorganize the university with the faculty’s helpful feedback and guidance, “from the ground up,” as they say. This was to be a collective “visioning” process, you will recall, done with the assistance of efficiency expert Susan Clemmons–”a fresh set of eyes.” We are now told by the same individual that layoffs are essentially not a matter of “if,” but “when.”

The threat of a substantial reorganization of the University leading to faculty terminations was again expressed in no uncertain terms by Pritchett at the College of Arts and Letters Faculty Assembly on April 23. At that time the faculty from that venerable FTE-generating dynamo—which, given this status, you may also recall , was to be “defended” from such personnel reductions—were told of forthcoming programs where professors would be offered “retirement incentives.” On a less generous note, the President remarked, it would be a priority to allow terminated faculty “more than 30 days notice” to find another job, short-sale their home, pull their children out of school, load up the car and Tom Joad-it out of South Florida. Yes, the unnerving prospect of being wheeled out to the curb is one of many endearing feature of “belonging” to the “FAU family.”

It is probable that such plans for reorganization and additional layoffs have gone forth in stealth form since mid-2009. You may recall that at that time the administration had to back track and regroup after the seriously botched attempt to layoff faculty in the College of Engineering. Not surprisingly, given the University’s considerable resources, administrators miraculously “found” the money to rehire these colleagues and avoid costly extralegal and legal actions. With Pritchett’s probable reappointment as provost it is almost a certainty that this planned reorganization and set of layoffs will be carried out like clockwork by FAU deans. And such a set of events, my dear colleague, may also tell us a great deal about FAU’s new leadership.

If you are an in-unit faculty or staff member I encourage you to review Article 13 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Layoffs. This article is by no means perfect. However, it does require that administrators follow certain procedures if layoffs are to take place, the most important of which is the matter of rank and seniority. When administrators and their highly-paid attorneys laid off faculty in Engineering in 2009 they set up bogus “functional units” to get around this element of the CBA. This was obvious even to the casual observer, and may be attempted again, so for the foreseeable future please be especially attuned to any abrupt changes in the organization of your department, unit, and/or college.

The continued planning of any reorganization resulting in layoffs will likely ensue over the summer and be implemented in fall. I encourage you to become a member of UFF-FAU for assistance in the grievance process should that avenue be necessary to protect your position and contest any wrongful termination. Please remember that you need to be a Union member for at least thirty days prior to any incident. If you choose not to go that route and you have reason to believe you may be targeted by the administration for layoff, it may be appropriate in the near future to consult with an attorney who will be able to act swiftly and vigorously on your behalf should such an unfortunate sequence of events come to pass.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

See related posts:

FAU’s Assets Swell to Almost $1 Billion: 2009 Financial Audit Now Available!

FAU Personnel Growth By Employee Category

April 19, 2010. Florida judge and Palm Beach County Human Rights Council President Rand Hoch calls on FAU’s new leader to adopt anti-discrimination policy, extend domestic partner benefits to FAU employees.

(Boca Raton, Florida) In the “Price of Silence” lecture at Florida Atlantic University Wednesday evening, April 14th, gay activist Rand Hoch, called on incoming FAU president Mary Jane Saunders to address gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues when she assumes her responsibilities at the state university this summer.

Hoch, who served as Florida’s first openly gay judge, is president of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council. Since 1988, the Council has persuaded public employers in Florida to enact more than sixty laws and policies benefiting Florida’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents.

The Council began working on gay issues with Florida Atlantic University in 2005. Individual faculty members and the FAU chapter of the United Faculty of Florida have been working on these issues behind the scenes for well over a decade.

Addressing FAU faculty and students in Barry Kaye Hall, Hoch called for an end to the “culture of silence” regarding gay issues at the university.

“For years, those on the FAU faculty and staff who have raised gay issues have felt marginalized or ignored. Some have even been subjected to ridicule for publicly addressing gay concerns,” said Hoch. “After a while some of these gay and gay-supportive individuals became silent. Some have told me it wasn’t just the marginalization they feared, they feared reprisal.”

“Eight of the eleven state universities have clearly written policies which specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Hoch. “But not FAU.”

The University of Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of Central Florida, the University of South Florida, the University of West Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University and New College of Florida all have nondiscrimination policies which specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“With Dr. Saunders’s leadership, progress could be made,” said Hoch. “Send an e-mail to President Sauders welcoming her to Florida Atlantic University. Ask her to set up a task force to specifically address the concerns of your university’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.”

“During his tenure as FAU President, Frank Brogan steadfastly refused to include the words ‘sexual orientation’ in the nondiscrimination policies and he ignored all requests regarding domestic partner benefits,” said Hoch.

Brogan stepped down as the university’s president last year to become chancellor for the State University System of Florida.

In 2003, after the FAU Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a motion supporting domestic partner benefits, then-Provost Ken Jessell put together a committee to study domestic partner benefits. In its report, the committee strongly recommended that FAU offer domestic partner benefits.

“That was six and one-half years ago,”said Hoch. “FAU still does not offer domestic partner benefits.”

More than a dozen of Florida’s public universities and colleges now offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. The schools include the University of Florida, the University of South Florida and Florida International University as well as at Brevard Community College, Broward College, Central Florida Community College, Florida Keys Community College, Hillsborough Community College, Lake-Sumter Community College, Manatee Community College, Miami-Dade College, Okaloosa-Walton College, Palm Beach State College, Pasco-Hernando Community College, Santa Fe Community College and Seminole Community College.

“Based on what other state institutions of higher learning are paying to implement domestic partner benefits in their workplaces, the cost of offering domestic partner benefits at FAU would probably be around $35,000 – basically the cost that any two of FAU’s 22,000 students pay to attend the school for one year,” Hoch predicted.

Cleveland State University, where Dr. Saunders served as provost, maintains a Safe Space Program whose goal is to create visible peer support and awareness of, for, and among gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning students.

“The CSU Safe Space Program recognizes that while other minority students can easily identify role models and mentors, the invisibility of sexual orientation makes it very difficult for gay students to ascertain where they can safely turn for support and information,” said Hoch “The Safe Space program provides these students with access to and recognition of individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities who are available to aid LGBT students in making connections with the resources available to them.”

Hoch asked the assembled faculty and students to call on President Saunders to establish a Safe Space Program at FAU.

The Palm Beach County Human Rights Council is dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The Council promotes equality through education, advocacy, direct action, impact litigation and community outreach.

Palm  Beach County Human Rights Council

Post Office Box 267

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

(561) 586-0203

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

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)