1
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
University of SouthAlabama
Faculty Senate
Report on
Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
February 2004
Submitted to:
The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of South Alabama, in conjunction with the 2003-2004 evaluation of university progress.
Prepared by:
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee for Presidential Evaluation:
Stephen Morris, Committee Chair, Vice Chair Faculty Senate
Nick Aronson, Senate Caucus leader, College of Medicine
Ross Dickens, Senate Caucus leader, Mitchell College of Business
Frank Donovan, Senate Caucus leader, College of Engineering
David Gray, Senate Caucus leader, College of Education
John Jefferson, Senate Caucus leader, College of Allied Health
Elliot Lauderdale, Senate Caucus leader, School of Continuing Education
Michelle Moreau, Senate Caucus leader, College of Arts and Sciences
Harold Pardue, Senate Caucus leader, School of Computer and Information Sciences
Marian Peters, Senate Caucus leader, College of Nursing
Justin Robertson, Senate Caucus leader, University Library
Executive Summary
- This report of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee (herein the Committee) focuses on the president and matters of concern to faculty. The Committee stresses the importance of reviewing the president periodically and the need to develop evaluative criteria.
- The Committee commends the president for developing and instituting a much needed comprehensive planning and assessment program that extends from the highest to the lowest levels of the institution.
- The Committee also commends President Moulton for decentralizing decision making and strengthening the role of the Academic Vice President.
- The Committee notes that the president has adopted most of the reforms recommended in the 1990 report prepared by Dr. Harold Enarson.
- Many important steps have been taken over the past five years to enhance the quality of the University, including the expansion of the library, an increase in the scope of freshman scholarships, the establishment of an honors program, the growth in federal research grants, and the creation of the TechnologyPark and CancerCenter.
- Communications between faculty and the president have improved dramatically. The president routinely meets with representatives of the Faculty Senate and conducts general faculty meetings.
- The Committee commends President Moulton’s handling of the football issue: a good example of his deliberative and consultative style.
- The president has greatly upgraded relations with the alumni, students and community leaders and has helped craft a more positive public image of the institution.
- The president has received an average evaluation of 3.38 on a scale of 1 to 5 in the annual faculty surveys since 1998. Additional survey data point to a positive opinion regarding the resources dedicated to teaching, but a less than positive evaluation of resources dedicated to research and limited confidence in recent search procedures.
- Faculty governance has improved under President Moulton, though much more can and should be done to enhance and ensure faculty involvement in decision making.
- The president has done a good job at securing financial resources for the institution during difficult fiscal times. The Committee praises the appointment of a development officer and the work of the institution to secure private gifts. The Committee remains concerned about the relationship with the USA Foundation – which has cost the institution substantially -- and the president’s handling of the dispute. Current developments in the relationship nurture guarded optimism.
- There is a sense among faculty that the president has not clearly defined or articulated a vision for the university.
- Despite positive administrative and academic changes, the Committee finds that academic matters have too often been neglected. Expanding enrollments and new programs have increased the burden on departments and faculty who are too often asked to do more with less.The Committee is also concerned about the reduction in the percentage of tenured/tenure track lines and the growing use of part-time faculty.
- Faculty salaries have stagnated during the five year period and continue to lag behind national averages: a major concern of faculty. Salary increases during the period are less than in comparable periods and well below the increases enjoyed by upper-level administrators.
Preface: The Task of Evaluating the President and the University
The idea for this evaluation grew out of the controversy surrounding the suspension of the presidential search and the appointment of V. Gordon Moulton in December 1998 by the USA Board of Trustees (BOT). To assuage faculty concerns, the BOT agreed at that time to “revisit the issue of the presidency in five years.”Shortly thereafter, however, the BOT adopted a policy guaranteeing a national search for future presidents, a policy later formalized in the 2001 mutual agreement with the USA Foundation.With the search issue resolved, the BOT therefore expanded the initiative to “revisit” the presidency in 2003 to encompass university progress.
The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee (the Committee) firmly believes that the BOT should conduct periodic assessments of the university president. There are many reasons to adopt such a policy. Among them, SACS requires it: “The effectiveness of all administrators, including the CEO (president) must be evaluated periodically” (SACS page 67, line 15, cited in USA SACS Report p. 21). The Enarson Report (1990, 10) – a report sponsored by and subsequently endorsed by the BOT – also stresses the need for the governing authority to “review performance [of the president] at stated intervals.”[1] Yet despite these recommendations and the advantages of formal mechanisms for assessment, the by-laws of the BOT do not mandate periodic evaluations of the university president, nor has the BOT to our knowledge exercised its responsibility in this area.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Faculty Senate pass a resolution calling on the BOT to adopt a policy to evaluate the president on a routine basis in full compliance with SACS requirements and, furthermore, that the BOT develop a systematic assessment process for such reviews that includes faculty input.
Criteria, Scope and Methods of this Report
One of the primary challenges faced by the Committee was to develop a set of criteria to evaluate presidential performance. The University mission statement and the planning document provide broad guidelines, but these relate more to the university as a whole than to the presidency. The Committee therefore sees part of its task as developing criteria to evaluate the president and recommends that the aforementioned Senate resolution call on the BOT to codify the president’s job description to assist future presidential evaluations.
A critical question in establishing criteria involves defining the scope of the evaluation. Three ingredients delineate the scopeof this report.First, the current evaluation focuses on presidential performance rather than university progress. Although it is often difficult to uncouple one from the other, we recognize that the president is ultimately responsible for shaping and implementing policies affecting the university. He may get undeserved credit and blame in equal measure. Second, this report examines those issues that most directly concern and impact faculty, specifically those items laid out in ‘Vision 1’ in the Long-Range Planningdocument and in the president’s report entitled “Achieving a Collective Vision,” including faculty recruitment and retention, opportunities and support for faculty development and research, the strengthening of degree programs and support for teaching, salaries and benefits, the purpose and vision of the university, faculty-administration relations, and faculty governance. We do not attempt to address inany systematic way such areas as student life (“Vision 2”), multiculturalism (“Vision 3”), the public image of the institution (“Vision 4”), the financial position of the institution (“Vision 5”), the overall planning, budgeting processes (“Vision 6”) or the strength of the USA Health System (“Vision 7”). Finally, this assessment concentrates on the five-year period since the naming of President Moulton as permanent president. We recognize that President Moulton did not take officewith a blank slate, but inherited the policies, institutions and challenges of his predecessor. Focus on the five-year period inherently means a comparison between the institution’s present and its past.
In preparing this report, the Committee collected and examined a wide range of materials from Senate reports and outside assessments of the organizational issues facing the University to annual faculty surveys and statistical data provided by the Office of Institutional Researchand Planning and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (SVPAA).The Committee also conducted extensive interviews with past Senate officers and held an open faculty forum to hear the concerns of all faculty. The Committee also received numerous written comments and recommendations from faculty.
Quantitative Faculty Evaluations of the President and University Leadership since 1998
The Faculty Senate annually conducts a comprehensive survey of faculty opinion. The survey is not based on a random sample; instead, all members of the faculty are encouraged to participate. The following tables present results relevant to this evaluation:
Table 1. Rating Presidential Performance
Question: indicate your confidence in, or opinion of, the effectiveness of University President (Moulton) (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent)
yearavg. score n
19983.26 (292)
19993.38 (315)
20003.51 (306)
2001 3.30 (335)
2002 3.30 (230)
2003 3.56 (210)
Table 2. Assessing University Leadership (president and vice presidents)
Question: indicate your opinion about how highly you rate the university leadership
(1 = very poor, 5 = excellent) (avg. scores)
200120022003
>Informs faculty of developments critical
to the accomplishment of the mission 3.06 3.05 3.35
>Honors all promises and commitments 2.98 3.09 3.43
>Is impartial and professional in relations
with faculty 2.92 3.01 3.28
>Conveys administrative expectations in
a clear and effective manner 2.89 3.01 3.33
>Encourages new initiatives2.77 2.52 3.25
>Seeks and dedicates ample resources
to fulfill mission 2.55 2.69 2.99
>Seeks and incorporates faculty input into
decisions concerning matters vital
to the mission of the university2.50 2.52 2.81
>Responds to crisis w/appropriate measures53% (yes) 42%* 76%*
* 2002 and 2003 versions contain a separate “no opinion” category
Table 3. Evaluating Resources for Teaching and Research
Questions: Are you provided with adequate and appropriate resources to teach effectively at USA?
Are you provided with adequate and appropriate resources to conduct research or creative work at USA?
(1= very inadequate, 5 = very adequate)(avg. scores)
yearTeachingResearch
19983.172.76
19993.132.64
20003.202.58
20013.152.40
20023.332.64
20033.702.87
Table 4. Gauging Faculty Morale
Question: If you had a variety of professional options, would you prefer to:
- remain at USA with little or not change in duties
- remain at USA with significant change in duties
- move to another institution
remain remain
year w/no changew/significant change move
199847%23%27%
199947%19%27%
200043%23%29%
200137%21%36%
200239%16%34%
2003 nd
Question:How satisfied are you with opportunities currently provided by USA to concentrate on what you do best?
(1=very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied)
yearavg. score
19983.17
19993.09
20003.03
20012.70
20022.02
20033.11
Table 5. Assessing Recruitment for President, VPs, and Deans and the Credibility of Search Committees (2003 only)
Question: Are you satisfied with the process of recruitment [of president, vice president and deans?(1=very unsatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) avg. score: 2.62
Question:Are you satisfied that the membership of search committees is credible?
(1= not very credible, 5= very credible) avg. score: 3.14
The overall assessments of the president reflected in Table 1 document a level of satisfaction above the 3.0 mid-point of the 1 to 5 scale: an assessment that has remained relatively consistent over the period. Confidence in the president compares well with the confidence ratings for other administrators (vice presidents and deans). Opinion varies across colleges with the College of Nursing and the School of Computer & Information Sciences at times issuing a rating of 4 or higher and the College of Arts & Sciences a rating slightly below 3.
Table 2 shows evaluations of “university leadership” (president and vice presidents). All assessments are in the positive direction with a noticeable improvement over the three year periodduring which this question has been asked. Table 3 gauges opinion on the commitment of resources to teaching and research. It reveals a relatively favorable opinion on the commitment of resources to teaching, but a less than favorable opinion on the commitment of resources to research. Table 4 presents two indicators of faculty morale. In two years, overall satisfaction falls below the mid-point of 3.0, suggesting a clear dip in faculty morale. The average figures, particularly the percentage of respondents expressing a desire to leave the institution if given the chance, show that faculty morale certainly has room for improvement. Finally, Table 5 contains two items regarding recruitment. Both the survey data and our discussions with faculty (see section under Recruitment) suggest lukewarm confidence in the recruitment process.
Vision
A shared vision, developed by the president and faculty, is critical to the institution. “Without such a vision there is no framework to guide the decision-making process” (Enarson Report 1990, 8). The points raised in meetings with faculty and in written comments reveal deep concerns about the current vision for the university. For example,despite the formulation of strategic goals (certainly a positive step), it remains unclear whether the University sees itself striving to become a major research institution or perceives its role as primarily teaching, or some combination of the two. Some believe that rather than giving due emphasis to academic matters, the president tends to see the institution more in terms of “career preparation.” Some sense that the University has not done enough to distinguish itself among the peer institutions in the region. One common observation is that the University tends toward the reactive rather than the proactive.
Planning and Administration
Among the challenges facing the president upon assuming office was to develop and institute a process for planning and assessment and to decentralize administrative decision-making. The Committee credits the president with designing and instituting a broad-based planning and evaluation system, the “USA Institutional Effectiveness Program.” In accordance to the recommendations of the Enarson Report (1990, 45, 52-53), the broad-based initiative features a Long-Range Planning Committee composed of members of the BOT, the administration, faculty, students, public officials and community leaders. Since its inception, the Long-Range Planning Committee has worked to formulate and articulate a set of strategic goals and to assess university progress toward achieving those goals. Equally important, the Institutional Effectiveness Program mandates detailed annual reviews and projections at the college, departmental and programmatic levels. Such reviews offer a much-needed and clear institutional means for the various units to plan growth, assess progress, and articulate needs.
The Committee also credits the president for effectively delegating responsibility over academic matters by strengthening the office of the academic vice president, a move also recommended in the Enarson Report (1990, 33). This positive development is a much needed departure from the micro-management of the prior administration.Consistent with the planning process, aspects of decision-making and assessments have been decentralized down to the college or the departmental level. In some cases (though not all), issues such as workload policy, reassigned time, budgets, and even the evaluation of department chairs have been made much more transparent and systematic.
Academic Support and Development
The Committee recognizes that significant improvements in the academic quality of the University have taken place over the past five years. The president enjoys credit for increasing enrollment, for expanding the number and scope of academic scholarships and an increase in the academic quality of incoming freshman, for promoting the development of new academic and professional programs and for creating an honors program. The many capital improvements listed under Vision 1 in “Achieving a Collective Vision,” including the library expansion, the completion of the Laidlaw Performing Arts Center, and the modernization of classrooms throughout campus are extremely important accomplishments, andhave significantly added to the learning environment. The growth of federal appropriations and the creation of the Cancer Research Institute and the TechnologyPark, moreover, have clearly helped set the stage for the University to become an important research leader and contribute to the local economy and to technological innovation.
The successful completion of the SACS Review and the university’s re-accreditation are also significant milestones for the institution. Yet the Committee shares the concern expressed by Professor Roger DuMars, the faculty coordinator of the SACS report, that “current personnel, programs and resources devoted to institutional accountability will not support future institutional and college accreditation efforts” (Letter to Mr. Nix, January 16, 2004).
The Committee recognizes that the president shoulders a wide range of duties and responsibilities. Many express the view, however,that the president tends to concentrate his efforts on community relations, infrastructure development and health care -- with good results -- but pays little attention to academic issues and faculty matters. Faculty believe that academic matters have not received the resources or attention they deserve. In talking with the academic units experiencing growth, it is our impression that there has been a failure by this administration to provide the resources needed to respond adequately to that growth. Many whom we spoke with expressed the view that expanding enrollments and the development of new programs have strained departments and faculty. Growing enrollments magnify the lack of academic personnel, forcing a greater reliance on part-time instructors, high turnover rates, and increasing workloads. Faculty have faced new demands for on-line programs, but without receiving adequate technical training or support. In many departments, despite the development of new programs, lines have been frozen, leading to the cannibalization of lines from other programs and departments. In short, faculty feel that in many cases they are being squeezed, asked to do more with less, thereby triggering frustration and feeding a sense that the administration cares little about what goes on at the classroom level. The burden often leads to fewer classes being taught, larger classes, or a greater reliance on part-time faculty who have a limited stake in the institution. The MBA online program, for instance, a new program touted in the president’s report, has become a lame-duck program and has been virtually dropped in part because of the lack of resources to run it.