Remember that Survey From Last Spring?

Final Results from AAUP-Sponsored Evaluation of Ohio University President Roderick McDavis, Provost Kathy Krendl, and Vice President for Regional Higher Education Charles Bird

Of the 1155 evaluation packets distributed to faculty on Ohio University’s main and regional campuses, 529 evaluations were returned with a June 7 or earlier postmark, a return rate of 45.8%. Only faculty on the regional campuses evaluated Vice President Bird. Of the 202 evaluations distributed to faculty on regional campuses, 87 evaluations were returned by the deadline, a return rate of 43.1%. The results of the evaluation, presented as percentages, are provided below for each statement regarding each of the three top administrators.

Evaluation of President Roderick McDavis

Through his actions and decisions, the President maintained the quality of academic programs and faculties at Ohio University during the past year.

Agree 11.4%
Agree Somewhat 20.1%
Disagree Somewhat 36.9%
Disagree 31.5%

Through his actions and decisions, the President maintained the salaries and benefits of Ohio University faculty during the past year when compared to those at state-supported universities in Ohio and at Ohio University’s stated peer institutions.

Agree 6.1%
Agree Somewhat 9.8%
Disagree Somewhat 24.8%
Disagree 59.3%

The President sought broad and meaningful consultation with faculty prior to making decisions affecting academic programs or working conditions of faculty during the past year.

Agree 8.1%
Agree Somewhat 10.9%
Disagree Somewhat 24.2%
Disagree 56.8%

The President’s decisions regarding allocation of budget, resources, and staff were transparent and fully explained during the past year.

Agree 7.2%
Agree Somewhat 13.7%
Disagree Somewhat 26.9%
Disagree 52.2%

Initiatives the President introduced during the past year are moving Ohio University in the right direction.

Agree 9.5%
Agree Somewhat 14.2%
Disagree Somewhat 32.0%
Disagree 44.3%

Based on the President’s actions and decisions during the past year, I would give him a vote of confidence.

Agree 12.5%
Agree Somewhat 12.3%
Disagree Somewhat 29.2%
Disagree 46.0%





Evaluation of Provost Kathy Krendl

Through her actions and decisions, the Provost maintained the quality of academic programs and faculties at Ohio University during the past year.

Agree 15.0%
Agree Somewhat 26.5%
Disagree Somewhat 31.3%
Disagree 27.1%

Through her actions and decisions, the Provost maintained the salaries and benefits of Ohio University faculty during the past year when compared to those at state-supported universities in Ohio and at Ohio University’s stated peer institutions.

Agree 6.0%
Agree Somewhat 13.2%
Disagree Somewhat 29.2%
Disagree 51.6%

The Provost sought broad and meaningful consultation with faculty prior to making decisions affecting academic programs or working conditions of faculty during the past year.

Agree 13.2%
Agree Somewhat 20.4%
Disagree Somewhat 28.4%
Disagree 38.0%

The Provost’s decisions regarding allocation of budget, resources, and staff were transparent and fully explained during the past year.

Agree 9.1%
Agree Somewhat 16.2%
Disagree Somewhat 30.2%
Disagree 44.5%

Initiatives the Provost introduced during the past year are moving Ohio University in the right direction.

Agree 12.3%
Agree Somewhat 16.9%
Disagree Somewhat 32.9%
Disagree 37.9%

Based on the Provost’s actions and decisions during the past year, I would give her a vote of confidence.

Agree 17.1%
Agree Somewhat 21.2%
Disagree Somewhat 28.4%
Disagree 33.3%


Evaluation of Vice President Charles Bird


Through his actions and decisions, the Vice President maintained the quality of academic programs and faculties at Ohio University during the past year.

Agree 12.9%
Agree Somewhat 14.1%
Disagree Somewhat 17.6%
Disagree 55.3%

Through his actions and decisions, the Vice President maintained the salaries and benefits of Ohio University faculty during the past year when compared to those at state-supported universities in Ohio and at Ohio University’s stated peer institutions.

Agree 6.0%
Agree Somewhat 9.6%
Disagree Somewhat 19.3%
Disagree 65.1%

The Vice President sought broad and meaningful consultation with faculty prior to making decisions affecting academic programs or working conditions of faculty during the past year.

Agree 3.5%
Agree Somewhat 4.7%
Disagree Somewhat 15.1%
Disagree 76.7%

The Vice President’s decisions regarding allocation of budget, resources, and staff were transparent and fully explained during the past year.

Agree 3.5%
Agree Somewhat 5.9%
Disagree Somewhat 12.9%
Disagree 77.6%

Initiatives the Vice President introduced during the past year are moving Ohio University in the right direction.

Agree 5.8%
Agree Somewhat 12.8%
Disagree Somewhat 18.6%
Disagree 62.8%

Based on the Vice President’s actions and decisions during the past year, I would give him a vote of confidence.

Agree 10.3%
Agree Somewhat 8.0%
Disagree Somewhat 12.6%
Disagree 69.0%

In response to the final summary statement, “Based on the President’s/Provost’s/Vice President’s actions and decisions during the past year, I would give him/her a vote of confidence,” 24.8% of the participating faculty “agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that they would give President McDavis a vote of confidence; only 38.3% “agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that they would give Provost Krendl a vote of confidence; and 18.3% “agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that they would give Vice President Bird a vote of confidence. Expressed as a vote of no confidence, 75.2% indicated no confidence in President McDavis, 61.7% indicated no confidence in Provost Krendl, and 81.6% indicated no confidence in Vice President Bird.

Rates of “disagree” and “somewhat disagree” in response to the six statements applied to President McDavis ranged from a high of 84.1% to a low of 68.4%. The highest rate of disagreement came in response to the statement, “Through his actions and decisions, the President maintained the salaries and benefits of Ohio University faculty during the past year when compared to those at state-supported universities in Ohio and at Ohio University’s peer institutions.”

Rates of “disagree” and “somewhat disagree” for Provost Krendl ranged from a high of 80.8% to a low of 58.4%, with the highest level of disagreement coming in response to the statement, “Through her actions and decisions, the Provost maintained the salaries and benefits of Ohio University faculty during the past year when compared to those at state-supported universities in Ohio and at Ohio University’s peer institutions.”

Rates of “disagree” and “somewhat disagree” for Vice President Bird ranged from a high of 91.8% to a low of 72.9%. The highest rate of disagreement came in response to the statement, “The Vice President sought broad and meaningful consultation with faculty prior to making decisions affecting academic programs or working conditions of faculty during the past year.”

DIRECT FACULTY EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATION THIS SPRING

80% of voting faculty members favored an AAUP-sponsored resolution that the President and the Provost be evaluated annually. If this were an election for the President of the United States, that number would be called a mandate. However, on May 13, Trustees Chair Greg Browning announced that “this resolution will not be formally approved as new policy.” Browning has short-circuited the faculty governing process and made clear that the trustees have disdain for the principle of shared governance and for elections carried out according to rules in the Faculty Handbook.

The OU chapter of the AAUP will implement the evaluation of the President and the Provost this spring in support of the 80% of our colleagues who voted to do so. Moreover, Group II faculty will participate in this evaluation; and faculty on the regional campuses also will evaluate the Vice President for Regional Higher Education.

We encourage all faculty interested in this matter to attend tonight’s Faculty Senate meeting and express their concerns. In addition, the Ohio Chapter of the AAUP has scheduled a meeting of concerned faculty at 4:10 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, in Baker Center’s 1954 Room. This meeting, originally intended as a business meeting for current AAUP members, is open to anyone interested in joining and pushing for concrete, transparent, and effective means to make Ohio University a better community for its faculty, students, and staff.

Executive Committee
Ohio University Chapter
American Association of University Professors

Not Divisive, Not Submissive

People opposing a general faculty evaluation of our president seem convinced that he would do poorly. Why else would they insist that a summary evaluation of his performance is synonymous with a “vote of no confidence”? Why do they say OU-AAUP is serving its own interests when 259 faculty members, most of them not AAUP members, have asked for this evaluation already?

We make no assumptions about how faculty members at large would evaluate the president and provost if they were given the opportunity. They deserve that opportunity, though. Harvard and Case Western University have shown recently what a real vote of no confidence looks like. The annual evaluation we’ve proposed and so many members of this community have supported is something very different.

Does OU-AAUP have an interest in the implementation of this evaluation form? Of course, but it’s not what opponents have claimed. We want the administration, when it claims to have the good will of the faculty, to know that it is so. We want the faculty, when they are asked to help shape the fortunes of O.U., to know that they are more than a hallelujah choir. We want the current president and future presidents to benefit from the same feedback that all other administrators, staff, students, and faculty enjoy on a regular basis. We want our own voice.

OU's Slipping Salaries

Ohio University lost ground to “peer” universities
and Ohio public universities in 2005-2006

Faculty salary increases, among the lowest in Ohio for 2005-2006, caused Ohio University to lose ground against public institutions that President Roderick McDavis has designated as “peer” universities, according to new data published yesterday by the American Association of University Professors.

Faculty salaries are near the bottom when compared to Ohio University’s peer universities. Salary increases Ohio University provided faculty also are at the very bottom of increases offered by the 10 peer universities and at or near the bottom among those offered by the 12 public universities in Ohio. Ohio University salary increases of 2.4 percent for professors, 3.0 percent for associate professors and 2.8 percent for assistant professors are well below the inflation rate of 3.4 for 2005-2006.

Among its 10 designated peer universities, salaries for 2005-2006 at Ohio University rank second to last for professors and associate professors and last for assistant professors. Only salaries at Washington State University are lower for professors and associate professors. Professors, associate professors, and assistant professors at Ohio University all received the lowest salary increases among the designated peer universities in 2005-2000.

Among 12 public universities in Ohio, 2005-2006 salaries at Ohio University rank seventh for professors and fourth for associate professors and assistant professors. At Ohio University, professors and associate professors received the second lowest and assistant professors the third lowest salary increases among the 12 Ohio public universities.

The comparative salary data are drawn from the AAUP “Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2005-06,” published in the March-April issue of Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. We've attached tables so you can compare data yourselves.

The AAUP study, accepted nationally as the standard description of the economic status of college and university faculty, is conducted annually.

ComparativeSalaryTables.pdf

PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION

We have wide-spread support for a petition that would call for a yearly evaluation of the President and Provost of Ohio University. We plan to present this to Faculty Senate very soon. So if you presently teach at OU, please sign the petition and then send it onto our secretary, Joseph Bernt. Even if the copy you have has only one signatures, send it via campus mail to:

Joseph Bernt
Journalism
Scripps Building

Thanks for your support.

You can download the petition by clicking here:

Faculty%20Evaluation%20of%20President%20%26%20Provost2.doc

SPRING BREAK’S OVER, CHECK YOUR VISION

We’re almost content to let the administration carry on spinning and contradicting itself, but a few of the most persistent mantras strike us as particularly odd. Highlights follow, but don’t take our word for it. President McDavis and Provost Krendl have been using email barrages, newspaper interviews, the floor of Faculty Senate, and probably other media to make it clear that whatever disgruntled university members think about Vision Ohio, budget realignments, or their own role in decision making, they’re mistaken.

FACULTY HAVE HAD ENOUGH INPUT? We want administration, faculty, students, and staff to share productive discussions. But that’s not what President McDavis is offering. When the faculty says it feels sidelined from crafting agendas or making decisions, the president and provost offer statistical data as empirical “proof” why faculty’s wrong and they’re right.

At the end of Winter Quarter, after an open faculty discussion sponsored by AAUP-OU generated a large turnout and lots of constructive criticism, McDavis and Krendl submitted Faculty Senate to yet another series of graphs and charts whose details even the president was unable to explain when pressed. The president thinks we don’t know how involved we’ve been. We disagree.

THEY VALUE FEEDBACK AND HAVE ALL ALONG? Feedback isn’t input. Student Senate made this point when the administration tried to ram through a new alcohol policy without any meaningful input from undergraduates; they cried foul and McDavis apologized. Faculty members have tried to express this every way they can—in Faculty Senate, in public and personal letters, in the open meeting we called a few weeks ago, and even in the very committees that are supposedly shaping Vision Ohio. Are we wrong to be skeptical of V.O.? Not when McDavis says, “Vision Ohio will become the driver,” but all we know for sure so far is V.O. helped earn him a $41,240 bonus before it was even finished. Now this “vision” has its own annual feast day.

VISION OHIO IS ABOUT “CREATING A BETTER LEARNING ENVIRONMENT”? We decided to run a crude statistical test for empirical “proof”—the kind of proof this administration uses to bludgeon Faculty Senators on a regular basis. So we checked the occurrence of some keywords in Vision Ohio, the very “living document” to which the administration constantly refers. We found that the word “undergraduate” appears 44 times in the document, compared to 110 instances of “graduate”—graduate students, graduate research, etc. Speaking of “research,” that word appears 115 times compared to a whopping 2 references to “liberal arts.” Lots of people here believe undergraduate education is the true foundation of Ohio University; they weren’t the ones who drafted V.O.

VISION OHIO AND BUDGET REALIGNMENT AREN’T RELATED? That’s not quite what the president told the Board of Trustees when they approved the budget cuts in March: one reason was cutting the deficit, he said, and the other was funding areas targeted in Vision Ohio. $9.2 million dollars generated by the proposed realignment (as well another round of tuition hikes) are pegged for V.O. priorities, not yet specified. But the president refers to this money as a “surplus” which he’ll “strategically reinvest.” That’s $9.2 million we’d generate in part by cutting programs, laying off classified employees and part-time faculty, and guilting staff into retiring early whether they planned to or not.

Meanwhile, in public venues such as Faculty Senate, McDavis and Krendl told chairs and directors to let the “principles” of Vision Ohio guide them as they cut 5% out of already lean budgets. Krendl has already released $1.5 million for implementing V.O. “core values,” and the university’s own “Research Report” (sorry, no public link to this document!) boasted that $11 million was earmarked for three select “interdisciplinary groups” in order “to inspire our faculty to step out of their academic silos.” Yet the provost maintains, “We are not going to be looking at huge reinvestments initially.”

The fact is, ‘Responsibility-Centered Budgeting’ is the only concrete plan this president has for the future. If Vision Ohio is in fact not “the driver” of our current and future plans, who or what is? We’re almost afraid to ask.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

The Ohio University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-OU) joins O.U. in its commitment to excellence in education and research, shared university governance, and transparent budgeting. In that spirit, we raise the following concerns.

• EDUCATION. As departments and programs plan to meet the administration’s demand for a 5% budget reduction, we are learning that teaching and support staff will be lost, classes will be larger, and student closeouts will increase. In addition, the administration recently increased enrollment while lowering the academic standards for admission, giving us more students with greater needs.

• RESEARCH AND CREATIVITY. Ohio University excels because of the rich and diverse engagement in research, inquiry, and creativity that define the university’s faculty and students. The administration’s current plan to make selective investments in a few areas says little about what happens to the departments, faculty and students in areas not “selected.”

• SHARED GOVERNANCE. Vision Ohio and its budget reallocation are top-down initiatives. They have been developed and introduced in a manner that has raised widespread concern about the extent of the administration’s commitment to shared governance. Too often, faculty are called to serve on “implementation” committees that work at cross-purposes and lack decision-making power.

• TRANSPARENCY AND THE BUDGET CUTS. We question the wisdom and necessity of an elective budget cut that is mandated by neither the state nor clearly demonstrated fiscal needs. Explanations for the cuts vacillate among rising energy costs, health care, salaries, speculative budget strategies, and reallocation for Vision Ohio. The most critical decisions take place within the president’s cabinet, whose meetings are closed and whose proceedings are as yet unpublished. In the end, the rationale for these cuts is unclear.

THE CASE OF ROBERT LIPSET

In order to show our support of Professor Lipset's struggles, we thought it best to simply post the findings of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Here it is: OCRC ON LIPSET CASE

FUN FACTS ABOUT OHIO UNIVERSITY!!!

Faculty receive a merit pay increase of 1%

The President receives a bonus of 15% -- a bonus that marks a first in OU's history and comes close to the salary of an assistant professor.

Presently, OU Faculty compared to their "peer institutions" make far less money in all ranks for Group I professors

But there's more for anyone concerned about the status of faculty at this institution:

Group 1 Faculty (full-time, tenure-track) have grown from 1998 to 2004 by 4.5%; this follows a student enrollment that's about the same

Group 2 Faculty (part-time, no tenure) have grown from 1998 to 2004 by 73.3%

Meanwhile, the number of administrators working in the President's office has increased from 1998 to 2004 a full 68.8%

These trends tell you something, don't they?

Ohio Post Story on Presidential Bonus

Ohio University Faculty Senate on Senate Bill 24, "Academic Bill of Rights"

Ohio University Faculty Senate
Resolution on Withdrawing Senate Bill 24, "Academic Bill of Rights"
Passed, February 14, 2005

Whereas SB 24, has introduced the "Academic Bill of Rights", into the 126th session of the Ohio General Assembly; and

Whereas SB 24 appears to shift responsibility for conducting and monitoring academic affairs from universities and professional accrediting organizations to state government; and

Whereas the very nature of higher education is to debate and discuss a variety of ideas; and

Whereas historically universities have had the autonomy and responsibility to determine their own curricula and teaching methodologies, and that this autonomy has served
societies well, and has greatly contributed to the political, scientific, artistic and technological success of humanity; and

Whereas academic autonomy is central to a free society and is one of the pillars of democracy; and

Whereas, students rights and grievance procedures are safeguarded within the academic institution's policies and procedures

Be it resolved that:
The Academic Faculty Senate at Ohio University vigorously opposes SB24 both in spirit and substance and calls for withdrawal of the senate bill.
.

Article on University priorities

"College these days a whole 'nother world"
excerpt of a commentary by Dale McFatters:
<< Ohio University, they say, is building a $60 million student center with a theater, food court, ballroom, grand staircase and five-story atrium. That's what you want when you're choosing a college, a really good atrium.>>
Read the whole article here