ࡱ>    bjbjVV <<W, , ooooo4h 45"5*_s n5p5p5p5p5p5p5$8C;5o$55$$5ooH5E,E,E,$oon5E,$n5E,E,V"3@3N&b3 Z5505n3T<&<3<o3 !E,)" #55*H5$$$$<, 5: SENATE AGENDA ITEM VI.A.1 12 April 2011 APPROVED FACULTY SENATE 12 April 2011 Provosts Performance Survey Report ~ 2009-10 Academic Year April 5, 2011 Faculty Senate Committee on Provost and Presidential Performance (CPPP) Senators: Lynda Conover (Chair), Bill Thompson, Phyllis F. Rippey, Mandeep Singh, and Netkal Made Gowda Overview and Methodology The following Provosts Evaluation for the year 2009-2010 is submitted at the request of the Board of Trustees. The instrument utilized for this survey was altered only with the addition of a singular question that asked respondents if they would like to review the Provosts stated goals for FY2011. The rationale in keeping the instrument unaltered was to be able to garner insights from the longitudinal data. The survey was conducted on-line by e-mailing each eligible faculty member a web link to complete the survey. Eligible faculty had three weeks (opened Feb 9, 2011 closed end of Mar 1, 2011) and were given two separate reminders in addition to the initial invitation to complete the survey. 179 of the 658 eligible faculty members accessed the Provosts survey. A total of 163 elected to participate, resulting in a gross (accessed) return rate of 27.05% and a net (participated) return rate of 24.77%. This represents a decreasing trend as compared with the following return rates in the previous years (Data provided by institutional research): YearGross Accessed Response RateSpring 201127.2%Spring 201034.5%Spring 200941.4%* Please note that gross (accessed) return rates were utilized in reporting the response rates as this was the first year that participants had to agree to participate. The declining response rates are a concern but the campus is in a state of transition and this may be a partial explanation. A 5-point Likert scale was used to respond to the items (1 = Not Effective to 5 = Highly Effective). The survey instrument had 38 questions divided into three focus areas: Total Campus Enterprise, Academic Goals, and Personnel, Faculty Relations and Campus Issues. Demographic information, along with open comment sections, was also included in the survey. The quantitative results of the survey can be seen in Table A: Provosts Survey Quantitative Data. Table A provides a quantitative review of the Provosts job performance for the 2009-2010 academic year. Each focus area (Total Campus Enterprise, Academic Goals, and Personnel, Faculty Relations and Campus Issues) was analyzed based on demographic information. No significant differences were found between genders, college/academic units, and years of service in the responses for the three focus areas. Opinions taken from the comments section were typed as written and will be provided to the Provost/Academic Vice-President. These comments are summarized in the Qualitative Analysis of Open Ended Comments section of this report. The report concludes with an Executive Summary. Demographic Overview 163 faculty members stated their intent to participate in the survey with 13 indicating that they would not like to participate. There were 5 missing values with respondents not indicating their intent to participate or not participate. 57% of the respondents identified themselves as males with 43% being females. There was a balanced representation of respondents that had been on campus for less than or greater than ten years. 45.1% of the respondents identified a 鶹 association of less than 10 years while 55.9% of the respondents indicated that they had been on campus longer than 10 years. The following was the response breakdown by college: College of Arts and Sciences: 33.1% College of Business and Technology: 15.7% College of Education and Human Services: 18% College o Fine Arts and Communication: 9.6% University Libraries: 2.8% * Please note that these values do not sum up to being 100% because some participants chose not to report their campus affiliations. On being asked about the frequency of interaction with the Provost, 44% of the respondents stated that they interact with him 1-3 times a year, while 28% indicated that they interact with him 1-3 times a semester, 21% stating that the interaction was 1-3 times a month, 1% indicating that it was 1-3 times a week, and 6% indicating that they never interacted with the Provost. With nearly half of the faculty interacting with the Provost a minimum 1-3 times a semester (28 + 21%) it is easy to recognize that the Provost has made himself very accessible. Overall Effectiveness Over the past three years, the mean in reporting the overall effectiveness of the Provost has improved. The following table represents the mean scores and standard deviations over the past three evaluations: YearMeanStandard Deviation2007 - 082.861.32008 - 092.931.42009 - 103.111.49 In a follow-up when faculty were asked if the Provost actively promotes policies that support the short- and long-term mission of the university, the respondents once again indicated an increase in the mean scores from the previous years. I. Total Campus Enterprise This metric was assessed on the basis of four evaluative constructs. The following tables reflect the Provosts performance over the three years on these components. Facilitating an environment for excellence in scholarship, teaching, and student learning. The Provost actively promotes an environment for excellence in: Mean 2007-08Standard DeviationMean 2008-09Standard DeviationMean 2009-10Standard DeviationScholarship3.201.33.181.33.261.39Teaching3.091.33.141.33.291.42Student Learning3.261.93.271.33.301.37 Supporting the short term and long-term strategic planning initiatives of the university. The Provost actively promotes policies that support the mission of the university relative to: Mean 2007-08Standard DeviationMean 2008-09Standard DeviationMean 2009-10Standard DeviationShort term strategic planning3.221.33.141.33.461.32Long term strategic planning3.151.43.081.43.281.39 Supporting the Universitys academic mission to the local community, the 鶹 Illinois region The Provost actively promotes the Universitys academic mission to: Mean 2007-08Standard DeviationMean 2008-09Standard DeviationMean 2009-10Standard DeviationThe local community3.121.33.071.53.151.49The 鶹 Illinois region3.071.33.041.53.121.51Beyond the region2.901.42.861.52.941.51 Fostering an academic environment that is rewarding for faculty and students. Overall, the Provost fosters an academic environment that is rewarding for: Mean 2007-08Standard DeviationMean 2008-09Standard DeviationMean 2009-10Standard DeviationFaculty to work2.771.42.841.43.011.50Students to learn3.171.23.131.33.331.39 Comment: Analysis of the four measures of the Total Campus Enterprise indicates that the Provost has had better evaluations in 2009/10 than in the previous two years. Even in the instances where the mean had dipped in the previous year, the current year indicates a correction in the mean values. While this is a positive development, the highest mean among all of the four measures for total campus enterprise is 3.46 for short-term strategic planning in the current evaluative period. The means for promoting excellence in scholarship, teaching, and student learning along with those for fostering an academic environment that is rewarding for faculty and students top out at 3.33 (Fostering an academic environment that is rewarding for students to learn) and will need to be improved to actively engage the university community and enhance morale. II. The following tables represent the Provosts performance regarding Academic Goals The Provost actively promotes policies that foster the activities of your department or academic unit.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.641.42.981.43.031.45 The Provost manages the Universitys resources wellMean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.991.33.021.33.351.42 The Provost actively promotes resource development for Academic Affairs.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation3.131.33.171.33.261.44 Overall, the Provost fosters faculty success.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.871.42.941.43.111.46 Overall, the Provost fosters the academic mission of 鶹 Illinois UniversityMean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation3.11.33.091.33.281.43 The Provost works effectively with President and Deans to allocate resources for your department or academic unit to achieve 鶹 Illinois Universitys mission.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationProvost with the President3.141.43.331.43.691.33Provost with your Dean2.641.43.011.43.271.48 The Provost works effectively with other administrators anticipating future needs (i.e., technology, infrastructure, or student services) of:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationFaculty2.831.42.751.42.941.52Students3.031.32.991.43.221.47Staff2.871.42.871.53.081.53 Regarding the Quad Cities academic programs, the Provost provides leadership in:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationPlanning3.121.53.091.63.421.51Developing3.051.53.061.63.391.55Implementing3.011.53.041.63.341.52Assessing2.931.53.051.63.291.54 Comment: In evaluating the questions pertaining to the Provosts performance regarding academic goals, responses indicate that the Provost has the best mean scores for each of the items on this past evaluative period than in the previous two evaluations. Even in instances where he had experienced lower means on items in the previous year (such as The Provost actively promotes resource development for academic affairs in the 08/09 cycle) the current evaluative scores reflect a bouncing back with the highest mean scores from all three evaluation periods. Especially noteworthy are the improved scores in the perceived working relationship between the Provost and the President and the leadership provided for the Quad Cities campus. On the other hand, the Provost was not perceived to work as effectively with others, such as faculty (mean 2.94), students (mean 3.22) and staff (mean 3.08). III. Provosts Performance regarding Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues The Provost fosters the highest academic standards for students at 鶹 Illinois UniversityMean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation3.131.33.171.33.261.44 The Provost allocates resources so that your department or academic units faculty can accomplish their research missionMean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.771.42.861.42.881.47 The Provost works effectively with Student Services to foster policies for:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationStudent LeadershipNo DataNo Data3.391.53.81.35Co-curricular Participation3.301.53.751.38 Regarding faculty, the Provosts management practices promote:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationExcellence2.741.42.771.53.031.52Diversity3.651.33.561.43.811.2 Regarding staff, the Provosts management practices promote:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationExcellence2.851.52.791.63.241.52Diversity3.61.43.461.53.831.27 Regarding student activities, the Provosts management practices promote:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationExcellence3.231.43.121.63.481.5Diversity3.781.33.621.53.91.27 The Provost ensures that university policies, procedures, and available resources are transparent to:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationFaculty3.931.53.061.53.271.55Staff3.051.53.231.53.511.52Students3.151.53.331.53.71.44 The Provost is accessible to concerns from:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationFaculty3.21.53.251.53.361.56Staff3.211.53.391.53.661.56Students3.421.43.541.53.861.42 The Provost provides effective leadership in the areas of:Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard DeviationInternational Education 2.931.383.081.473.131.58Life Long Learning3.111.443.131.493.151.56The Centennial Honors College3.141.43.221.433.411.59 Comment: The data evaluating the Provosts performance regarding Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues shows a similar pattern as that in evaluating his performance regarding academic goals. Once again, the Provost had his best year in terms of the mean scores across the board. Even in instances where he had declining means on a couple of items last year, such as Regarding student activities, the Provosts management practices promote excellence and Regarding staff, the Provosts management practices promote diversity, the mean scores rebounded to their highest level. This upward trend overall did not hold true for only one item: The Provost ensures that University policies, procedures, and available resources are transparent to: Faculty. Although the mean had the highest value of 3.93 in the 2007/08 cycle followed by a mean of 3.06 in 2008/09, the item did receive a modest rebound to 3.27 in 2009/10 further supporting the upward trend in survey responses. IV. The Provosts Overall Performance The Provost supports faculty governance at all levels.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.951.43.021.43.261.45 The Provost consults the faculty adequately before making important decisions.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.551.52.611.42.861.46 The Provost makes effective administration appointments. Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.491.42.581.42.751.54 The Provost fosters cooperation among university colleges.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.761.42.871.43.191.57 The Provost works effectively with the Union to administer the college bargaining agreement.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.81.42.961.53.281.45 The Provost provides effective supervisory leadership to the Dean or Director of your college or academic unit.Mean 2007-2008Standard DeviationMean 2008-2009Standard DeviationMean 2009-2010Standard Deviation2.541.42.921.53.231.52 Comment: It is noteworthy that in every measure evaluating the Provosts overall performance, mean scores improved across the board over the three evaluative cycles. It must also be noted, however, that the highest mean score among these variables was 3.28 on evaluating the Provosts effectiveness in working with the union to administer the collective bargaining agreement. Cumulative Comment on the Quantitative Analysis of the Provosts Performance: Of the 38 survey questions there were 50 evaluative statements assessing the Provosts performance, ten statements had a mean score higher than 3.5, 35 statements had means between 3.0 and 3.5, with 5 with means between 2.75 and 3.0. The lowest mean value was 2.75. The Provost received the highest ratings of effectiveness on questions 22 (M = 3.90), relating to practices that promote diversity, 24 (M = 3.86) accessible to concerns from students, 21 (M = 3.83) management practices promoting diversity among the staff, and 20 (M = 3.81) promoting diversity among faculty. These scores clearly indicate that the Provost is recognized as an individual promoting diversity across campus while being accessible to the student body. While a great majority of faculty respondents rate several areas of the Provosts performance as effective, there are some areas of concern regarding his effectiveness. Some faculty respondents rated the Provost as less than effective (M < 3.0) in some components of the survey. Specifically, his management practices were rated as less than effective in making administrative appointments (#29/M = 2.75). The Provost was also rated as less than effective in consulting faculty adequately prior to making important decisions (#28/M = 2.86). The faculty who responded to the survey also rated the Provost as less than effective in allocating resources to the Departments/Academic units to enable faculty to accomplish their research mission (#18/ M = 2.88). While the results suggest that the faculty who responded to the survey perceived the Provost to be less than effective in a few areas, its important to note several general trends. As stated in the comments section, for the large part this was a period of positive overall evaluations for the Provost. The discernible patterns of responses relative to last years data indicate improvement in nearly all areas of evaluation. Most of the questions were within two tenths (plus or minus) of the previous years survey results. The largest change in either direction was question #19 about the Provost working effectively with Student Services to foster policies for student leadership and co-curricular participation. The response change was a 0.45 increase in perceived effectiveness in this area. An important consideration when interpreting these quantitative data is the wide range of the standard deviations. Many of the standard deviations are in a range of 1.2-1.6, based on raw data from a 5-point Likert scale. This large dispersion of scores suggests that the faculty perceive a wide range of effectiveness relative to the effectiveness in the Provosts job performance. Lastly, the Provosts overall mean rating of effectiveness was 3.11 showing a significant increase in the overall perceived effectiveness from last year (M = 2.93). and an overall discernible upward trend in faculty survey responses. Generally, the quantitative survey data demonstrate what areas faculty members perceive are important, what Provost Thomass areas of strength and weakness are, and how the Provosts leadership has affected them over the last year. In this sense, the survey has fulfilled its function. Table A: Provost Survey Quantitative Data Q Question TextMean (Average) ScoreStandard Deviation*N (# of respondents per question/ (no opinion/no answer**)2007-082008-092009-102007-082008-092009-102007-082008-092009-101.The Provost actively promotes an environment for excellence in: i. Scholarship ii. Teaching iii. Student learning 3.20 3.09 3.26 3.18 3.14 3.27 3.26 3.29 3.30 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.39 1.42 1.37 234 (23/6) 233 (24/5) 206 (45/11) 208 (9/7) 209 (6/9) 195 (18/11) 150 (2/1) 149 (2/1) 149 (6/2)2.The Provost actively promotes policies that support the mission of the university relative to: i. Short term strategic planning ii. Long term strategic planning 3.22 3.15 3.14 3.08 3.46 3.28 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.32 1.39 193 (56/15) 189 (59/13) 185 (25/14) 181 (29/14) 151 (13/2) 151 (13/3)3.The Provost actively promotes policies that foster the activities of your department or academic unit. 2.64 2.98 3.03 1.4 1.4 1.45 249 (12/2) 176 (7/41) 150 (1/1)4. The Provost actively promotes the Universitys academic mission to: i. The local community ii. The western Illinois region iii. Beyond the region 3.12 3.07 2.90 3.07 3.04 2.86 3.15 3.12 2.94 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.49 1.51 1.51 161 (87/16) 150 (93/18) 133 (108/22) 145 (61/18) 145 (62/17) 124 (77/23) 150 (27/6) 150 (27/8) 150 (2/1)5.The Provost manages the Universitys resources well.2.993.023.351.31.31.42192 (59/9)190 (21/15)150 (12/6)6.The Provost actively promotes resource development for academic affairs. 3.13 3.10 3.31 1.3 1.9 1.46 191 (59/8) 165 (41/18) 149 (26/9)7.Overall, the Provost fosters faculty success.2.872.943.111.41.41.46239 (16/4)210 (3/1)150 (2/2/)8.Overall, the Provost fosters an academic environment that is rewarding for: i. Faculty to work ii. Students to learn 2.77 3.17 2.84 3.13 3.01 3.33 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.50 1.39 246 (12/3) 202 (52/6) 213 (3/8) 191 (22/11) 151 (2/1) 151 (12/1)9.Overall, the Provost fosters the academic mission of 鶹 Illinois University. 3.10 3.09 3.28 1.3 1.3 1.43 221 (32/8) 210 (5/9) 150 (2/0)10.The Provost fosters highest academic standards for students at 鶹 Illinois University. 3.13 3.17 3.26 1.3 1.3 1.44 212 (36/8) 155 (13/49) 149 (7/1)11.The Provost works effectively with the President and Deans to allocate resources for your department or academic unit to achieve 鶹 Illinois Universitys mission. i. Provost with President ii. Provost with your Dean 3.14 2.64 3.33 3.01 3.69 3.27 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.33 1.48 162 (82/14) 194 (53/7) 123 (66/28) 164 (28/25) 150 (32/10) 149 (16/5)12. The Provost works effectively with other administrators anticipating future needs (i.e. technology, infrastructure, or student services) of: i. Faculty ii. Students iii. Staff 2.83 3.03 2.87 2.75 2.99 2.87 2.94 3.22 3.08 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.52 1.47 1.53 212 (42/4) 152 (92/12) 143 (98/15) 177 (24/16) 134 (58/25) 115 (68/34) 150 (14/2) 149 (39/8) 149 (49/12)13.The Provost works effectively with Student Services to foster policies for: i. student leadership ii. co-curricular participation No data 3.39 3.30 3.80 3.75 No data 1.5 1.5 1.35 1.38 No data 82 (93/42) 83 (92/42) 146 (67/18) 146 (70/19)14. The Provost allocates resources so that your department or academic units faculty can accomplish their research mission. 2.77 2.86 2.88 1.4 1.4 1.47 233 (20/4) 179 (7/31) 151 (5/0)15.Regarding Quad Cities Campus academic programs, the Provost provides leadership in: i. Planning ii. Developing iii. Implementing iv. Assessing 3.12 3.05 3.01 2.93 3.09 3.06 3.04 3.05 3.42 3.39 3.34 3.29 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.51 1.55 1.52 1.54 94 (133/30) 94 (133/30) 92 (133/31) 86 (139/31) 68 (95/54) 67 (95/55) 68 (95/54) 62 (99/56) 151 (67/22) 151 (69/21) 149 (68/23) 151 (73/23)16.The Provost supports faculty governance at all levels.2.953.023.261.41.41.45223 (29/5)172 (18/23)148 (10/1)17.The Provost consults the faculty adequately before making important decisions.2.552.612.861.51.41.46229 (21/5)174 (14/25)151 (9/0)18.Regarding faculty, the Provosts management practices promote: i. Excellence ii. Diversity 2.74 3.65 2.77 3.56 3.03 3.81 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.52 1.20 237 (18/1) 219 (34/4) 195 (5/13) 184 (17/12) 151 (2/0) 150 (11/4)19.Regarding staff, the Provosts management practices promote: i. Excellence ii. Diversity 2.85 3.60 2.79 3.46 3.24 3.83 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.52 1.27 123 (111/23) 116 (111/26) 104 (72/37) 109 (69/35) 151 (44/14) 151 (44/14)20.Regarding student activities, the Provosts management practices promote: i. Excellence ii. Diversity 3.23 3.78 3.12 3.62 3.48 3.90 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.50 1.27 135 (104/19) 139 (100/19) 99 (79/35) 99 (80/34) 148 (38/12) 149 (46/13)21.The Provost makes excellent (2007- 08)/effective (2008-09) administrative appointments (question rephrased) 2.49 2.58 2.75 1.4 1.4 1.54 198 (52/6) 163 (31/19) 151 (19/4)22.The Provost fosters cooperation among university colleges.2.762.873.191.41.41.57185 (58/12)132 (55/26)150 (41/8)23.The Provost ensures that university policies, procedures, and available resources are transparent to: i. Faculty ii. Staff iii. Students 3.93 3.05 3.15 3.06 3.23 3.33 3.27 3.51 3.70 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.55 1.52 1.44 238 (16/1) 152 (90/15) 143 (94/18) 186 (9/18) 121 (61/31) 114 (65/34) 150 (4/1) 150 (44/12) 150 (41/13)24.The Provost is accessible to concerns from: i. Faculty ii. Staff iii. Students 3.20 3.21 3.42 3.25 3.39 3.54 3.36 3.66 3.86 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.56 1.56 1.42 230 (21/6) 131 (99/26) 116 (114/26) 183 (16/14) 100 (77/36) 94 (78/41) 150 (6/1) 150 (60/16) 149 (55/14)25.The Provost works effectively with the union to administer the collective bargaining agreement. 2.80 2.963.28 1.4 1.51.45 210 (37/10) 131 (36/46)150 (25/5)26.The Provost provides effective leadership in the areas of: i. International education ii. Life long learning iii. The Centennial Honors College 2.93 3.11 3.14 3.08 3.13 3.223.13 3.15 3.41 1.38 1.44 1.40 1.47 1.49 1.431.58 1.56 1.59 141 (98/15) 125 (112/19) 121 (109/23) 117 (64/32) 103 (75/35) 98 (79/36)151 (42/10) 151 (48/12) 151 (53/15)27.The Provost provides effective supervisory leadership to the Dean or Director of your college or academic unit. 2.54 2.92 3.23 1.4 1.5 1.52 182 (64/8) 158 (35/20) 149 (24/7)28.Overall, I rate the Provost:2.862.933.111.31.41.49248 (0/8)188 (3/21)149 (1/1) * The question number in the table above does not correspond to the survey question number referenced within the body of the document. ** Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion. In other words, it measures the degree to which responses are spread out around the mean. The larger the standard deviation, the more the scores differ from the mean. Alternatively, if the standard deviation is small, this indicates that the scores were very close to one another. A t-test is used to assess *** 176 faculty members answered at least one question. No answer was offered as a response choice, rather than forcing respondents to always select from the 1-5 Likert scale of perceived effectiveness. Thus, the total number of respondents does not always add up to 176. Qualitative Analysis of Open Ended Comments: As part of the 2010-11 Annual Faculty Survey of the Provost, 163 faculty respondents provided 88 comments in three general areas and an additional section about overall performance: Total Campus Enterprise (comments = 29), Academic Goals (comments = 26); Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues (comments = 18), and Additional Comments or Suggestions about the Provosts performance (comments = 15). Of the 88 comments, 66 were considered to be negative or critical, 15 were positive, and 7 were neutral in some general manner or not relevant to an evaluation of the Provost. All survey respondents were asked if they wished to review the Provosts stated goals for FY11 as the first question on the survey. One hundred thirty-seven of the 173 faculty members who began the survey indicated they would review Dr. Thomass goals. Only 93% (163) of those who began the survey actually agreed to participate in it. Comments were analyzed in terms of the category in which they were presented. Provost Thomas has received a print copy of all comments as well as qualitative analysis of those comments. Total Campus Enterprise There were 29 responses related to Total Campus Enterprise, 3 that were positive, 24 that were generally negative, and 2 that were neutral. Of these responses, the positive comments supported the Provosts leadership and abilities as a mentor and resource, his overall effectiveness and diversification of the campus in terms of faculty and staff, and his abilities to foster an efficient and evolving academic environment. Those who were critical of the Provosts performance indicated concerns related to too many administrators, micromanagement on the part of the Provost, difficulties in getting answers to specific questions from the many new and inexperienced staff in the Provosts Office, and increases in scholarly requirements without concomitant increases in necessary resources. Several respondents mentioned their concern with the perception of faculty that the Provost is overly influenced by the Associate Provost and Contract Administrator and suggested that Dr. Thomas needs to establish himself as a leader independent of his subordinates. Others indicated a perceived lack of credibility demonstrated through actions that do not match what is said or written. Comments from at least two respondents focused on the use of student evaluations and the lowering of expectations that may come as a result of teach[ing] to the evaluations. One respondents neutral comment suggested that the universitys commitment to sustainability should be reflected in planning documents. One respondent saw tutored study as a punishment of faculty when class sizes drop below 10. Academic Goals This section consisted of 26 comments of which 5 were positive, 18 were generally critical or negative, and 3 were neutral. Individual respondents were positive about Dr. Thomass support for the nursing program and Womens Studies and praised the Provost for being wonderfully frank and productive in his visits to department meetings. A faculty respondent pointed to the FYE program and stated that it was not meeting its goals and perhaps should be offered only during fall semesters, while others reflected that they did not see any effect on academic goals as a result of the Provosts input and posited that Our academic standards have gone down since he arrived. Several comments focused on the difficult budget issues affecting the university with respondents offering praise and criticism for the Provosts role in addressing these issues. Respondents praised the Provost for being a careful steward of fiscal resources and the fact that he initiated the Faculty Travel Award as well as his efforts during the contract negotiations. The effects of resource limitations, however, were tied specifically to needs for updating computers to support faculty productivity, especially for new faculty, and to the inability of the Libraries to meet academic goals. Tutored study was specifically criticized as being a poor management tool. Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues Of the 18 received in this category, 3 comments were positive or partially positive, 0 were neutral and 15 were negative. Several respondents praised the Provost for his accessibility, his response to feedback, and his passionate interest in higher education and the success of 鶹. He is visible and present at the appropriate meetings, councils, and committees consistent to his position. Criticism was, however, aimed at being unable to connect with faculty or to evidence that he is the faculty writ large, that he is their spokesperson in the Presidents Cabinet, [or] that he is fighting for money to support research and improve facilities. Several respondents made points about lack of active engagement with faculty, staff, and students and a perception, whether accurate or not, that the Provost has low credibility among faculty in part because faculty are afraid to engage in open criticism for fear of reprisals to individuals, schools, or colleges. One comment referred to a strong tendency to want to pay well below-market salaries to new faculty. . . not understand[ing] what it takes to improve faculty quality. Several respondents addressed the issue of diversity. Most comments on diversity were critical of an overemphasis on diversity of race or ethnicity with too little support for veterans, gays, and other underrepresented minorities. A second concern related to diversity was that 鶹 is sacrificing quality for diversity and that the push for diversity has had a negative effect on excellence. One respondent praised Dr. Thomas for his efforts to increase diversity but suggested that little tangible changes in diversity of students, staff, or faculty have occurred during his tenure. Comments were also critical of the Provosts impact on the Center for International Education and blame him for a slowing of the momentum of internationalization on this campus. One respondent mentioned a too-heavy reliance on the University Contract Administrator, particularly during the last contract extension negotiation, and another questioned the adding of office personnel in Sherman Hall when departments were told to watch expenditures. Additional Comments or Suggestions about the Provosts Overall Performance: There were a total of 15 comments made in this section, 2 of which were positive, 11 were negative, and 2 that were neutral or irrelevant. One respondent mentioned several of the Provosts positive characteristicssmart, intelligent, cunning, forthright, charming . . . [who] strongly believe[s] in fairnessand suggested that there are terrible difficulties ahead . . . . If you cant lead us out of this historic morass, lead us through it. Another stated that Overall performance of the provost is excellent, but many others were critical of his overall performance in terms of micromanaging, needing to delegate responsibilities to his deans, and a need for more support within academics. Low faculty and staff morale, severe sanction[s] by the Provost, and ignoring faculty/shared governance were also included among the negative responses. Qualitative Conclusions The 2009-2010 survey of the Provosts performance received only slightly more than half of the number of comments provided in the 2008-2009 survey. Of the 88 comments received, 75% of the comments were negative (compared to 50% in 2009-2010), 15% were positive (compared to 21% in 2009-10), and 8 % were neutral (28%). Faculty provided comments in three areas and overall performance, many of which indicated a general sense of discouragement related to low faculty and staff morale, the perception that the Provost micromanages academic departments and deans, and faculty distrust of the Provost, including a sense that he responds very negatively to those who disagree with him. Respondents commented positively on pursuing greater diversity for 鶹 but felt that such diversity has been limited to considerations of race and ethnicity. In general, comments indicate generally negative perceptions of the Provost on the part of faculty who opted to provide comments, which may need correction before more positive regard is accorded the Provost. Executive Summary Faculty who opted to provide comments regarding issues presented in this survey expressed an overall sense that many faculty are feeling quite negative about the Provosts performance. There are significantly fewer positive and neutral comments. This may mean, however, that those who feel strongly negative about an issue were more inclined to comment on their concerns. Responses to the survey generally indicate where concerns of faculty are focused as well as the strengths and weaknesses the Provost brings both to his overall performance and to finding solutions for important concerns.     CPPP Provosts Performance Survey Report PAGE  PAGE 10 Y[~  > @ D U V q    9 o wwjhh`PJnHtHh*RB*PJnHphtHhB*PJnHphtHh=CB*PJnHphtHh`B*PJnHphtH!h`h`B*PJnHphtHh`h`PJnHtHh` h3hHhH h#yhH h)5 h=C5h#yhH5 hH5 h(;5)23KYZ[1 V q r   $$1$7$8$H$If]a$gd861$7$8$H$]gd`$a$gdHgdH$a$gd(;$a$gd(; $^a$gd(;  #WXU`  -6_` νzszlzez^zWz hq4h{:P hq4h{ hq4hH hq4hGm hq4hRG hq4h+9 hq4hWh[hH5hHhGmhRG7 hGmhRGhRG h#yhRG h#yhK-5hGmh`!h`hB*PJnHphtHhB*PJnHphtH!h86hB*PJnHphtH$h86h5B*PJnHphtH rZZ$$1$7$8$H$If]a$gd86kd$$IfTl0oJ t0644 lapyt86T rZZ$$1$7$8$H$If]a$gd86kd$$IfTl0oJ t0644 lapyt86T rZZ$$1$7$8$H$If]a$gd86kdT$$IfTl0oJ t0644 lapyt86T "#X ra\\WW\\\\gdRGgdH1$7$8$H$]gd`kd$$IfTl0oJ t0644 lapyt86T CDi  $$Ifa$gd3Bgd4 & Fgd+9gdH  /<kluvAWV̼𼸱h3BhKS<5h*RhchJchKS<h*Rh(;5 h9iw5h*RhP.5 h/q%5 h)h)hcNh9iwh qh3Bh q5h{h)~h*RhH5h*Rh)~5h:Gh/PdhrA?h=Ch4hmIhq41k___ $$Ifa$gd3Bkd$$IfTl'F=4  t06    44 layt3BTk___ $$Ifa$gd3Bkd_$$IfTlF=4  t06    44 layt3BTk___ $$Ifa$gd3Bkd$$IfTl'F=4  t06    44 layt3BTkfffffffafgdJcgdHkd$$IfTl'F=4  t06    44 layt3BT Vcv $$Ifa$gd3BV[v{ $%()-.2345638ST- . s x !!h9iwhJchD+hchKS< h qhD+h3BhKS<5h3BhJc5Tkd$$IfTl8֞ 2 b t0"644 lav)!8 t0"644 laytmIT ! $$Ifa$gd3B!!kdL$$IfTl֞]S >v)!8 t0"644 laytmIT!!!!%!&!)!*!.!/!2!3!7!8!!P!T!U!X!Y!]!^!a!b!f!g!k!l!m!!! ""+"0"K"P"k"l""""""""""#####$$x$y$%% &!&"&#&ļh(;hK-5h[h?h=Ch,?h(;5 h,?5h,?h,?5hmhmI h qhmIh3Bhm5h3BhJc5hJchchKS<hD+?!!!&!*!/!3!8!=! $$Ifa$gd3B=!>!kde$$IfTl֞]S >v)!8 t0"644 laytmIT>!P!U!Y!^!b!g!l! $$Ifa$gd3Bl!m!n!gdJckd~$$IfTl֞]S >v)!8 t0"644 laytmITn!o!!! ""+"8"K"X"k" $$Ifa$gd3BgdHgdJc k"l"kd$$IfTl<֞Z^ } S t0!644 la(ytmITl"|""""""" $$Ifa$gd3B""kd$$IfTl)֞Z^ } S t0!644 la(ytmIT"""""""" $$Ifa$gd3B"""gdHkd$$IfTl<֞Z^ } S t0!644 la(ytmIT"""!&"&#&{&|&}&&&&&''('-'7'J'K'L'Q'U'Z'^'c'h' $Ifgd/q%Ff $$Ifa$gd/q%gdH#&e&z&{&}&&J'K'j'k''(($(&(o((((($))))))b*c****&++++++,,,_-`--...../6/r/u// 00000W0^0_00001뼴̰̰̬̰̬먬h[h lh=Ch,?h/q%5h,?h,?5h$h(;ha h h/q%h/q%h/q%5CJaJh/q%h/q%5h/q%hK-5ha5hK-5h/q%5@h'i'j'k''''''''''((( (((((#($(%(&(Ff $Ifgd/q%Ffp $$Ifa$gd/q%gd/q%Ff@&(o(t(~((((((((((((((((((($)))3)<)gd/q%Ff% $Ifgd/q%Ff" $$Ifa$gd/q%<)F)U)h)m)w))))))))))))))* ***-*@*E*gd/q%FfN, $Ifgd/q%Ff$) $$Ifa$gd/q%E*O*b*c*d*h*l*q*u*z*****&+++5+>+H+W+j+o+y+++Ff5gd/q%Ff2 $Ifgd/q%Ff~/ $$Ifa$gd/q%+++++++++++++++++++,,,,,,,,gd/q%FfQ<Ff9 $$Ifa$gd/q%,,,,,,-- -----#-'-,-0-5-:-;-A-F-J-O-S-X-]-FfEFfBFf? $$Ifa$gd/q%]-^-_-`---------...!.&.*./.3.8.=.>.I.N.R.W.FfvOFfFL $$Ifa$gd/q%gd/q%FfIW.[.`.e.f.s.x.|................00<2=2gdHFfYFfUFfR $$Ifa$gd/q%1111111<2=2222Y3Z3z33Y4Z4z44,5-5555<6=66660717770818888L9M9999N:O::::_;`;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<=x====hk{hZhdi/ h/5h/h/5 h=C5h$ h h6)#h6)#h6)#5CJaJh6)#h6)#h6)#5h[h=Ch lh,?E=222223 33$373<3F3Y3Z3[3`3d3i3m3r3w3x3y3z333Ff`_ $Ifgd6)#Ff6\ $$Ifa$gd6)#gd6)#34 44$474<4F4Y4Z4[4`4d4i4m4r4w4x4y4z4444444gd6)#Ffe $Ifgd6)#Ffb $$Ifa$gd6)#4 555,5-5@5H5P5U5Y5]5b5c55555555555555gd6)#FfDoFflFfh $$Ifa$gd6)#555666)6<6=6H6M6Q6V6Z6_6d6e6o6t6x6}6666666gd6)#FfxFfuFftr $$Ifa$gd6)#66666667770717<7A7E7J7N7S7X7Y7c7g7k7p7t7y7~7Ff(Ff{ $$Ifa$gd6)#~7777777778880818<8A8E8J8N8S8W8X8b8g8k8p8t8FfFf $$Ifa$gd6)#gd6)#FfXt8x8}8~888888899*9/999L9M9U9Z9^9c9g9l9q9r9x9}9Ff<Ffgd6)#Ff $$Ifa$gd6)#}99999999999999999999: ::,:1:;:N:gd6)#FfFfl $$Ifa$gd6)#N:O:W:[:_:d:h:m:r:s:y:~:::::::::::::::FfVFf&Ff $$Ifa$gd6)#Ff̛:::::;;;*;=;B;L;_;`;y;~;;;;;;;;;;;;FfFf $$Ifa$gd6)#gd6)#;;;;;;;;;<<<<<<?? @@E@J@T@]@g@v@ $$Ifa$gd/gd/gdHFfFf $$Ifa$gd6)#===">$>V>???? @@E@@@@AAAAA@BAB`BBCC!C~CCCDDsDDDDDEEEVEWEXEmEEEEEEEErFsFtFFFFFG&Gǿ̻𰫣hc/ hQhHh#yhH5 h45 h#yhHh,h4h4h45 h/5hqr h h/h/h/5CJaJh/h/5 h$5h/hGCh=Chk{V?V@VDVHVIVJVNV V$Ifgdqr $IfgdqrFf7 $$Ifa$gdqrNVRVSVTVYV^V_V`VlVxVyVzVVVVVVVVVWWWW!W"W'W $IfgdqrFf $$Ifa$gdqr'W(W,W-W1W2W7W8WCWDWOWPWZW[W_WWWWWWWWWXXX X $IfgdqrFfk $$Ifa$gdqr XXXXXXX$X%X&X*X.X2X3X4X8X?___'2<`=`G`R`\`]`u````a a+a0aIaSaTaUaaab)b_?_@_A_M_Y_e_f_g_h_s_~______``````"`'` $IfgdqrFf $$Ifa$gdqr'`(`)`.`3`4`5`=`>`?`C`G`H`I`N`S`T`U`]`^`_`j`u`v`w````Ffo  $$Ifa$gdqr``aaaaaa!a"a&a'a+a,a1a2a=a>aIaJaTaUaYaaaaaFf $$Ifa$gdqr $Ifgdqraaaaaaaaabb bbbbbb b%b*b+b,b0b4b8bb $$Ifa$gdqr $Ifgdqr>bBbFbJbNbObPbUbZb_bdbebfbrb~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb $$Ifa$gdqrbbb2c7cjJjUjVj`jljxjyj}jjjjjj $IfgdqrFf 4 $$Ifa$gdqrjjjjjjjj k kk"k#k'kbk}kkkkkkkkkkkk $IfgdqrFf7 $$Ifa$gdqrjjk!k"k#kkkkkll&l.l3l;l $$Ifa$gdqr $Ifgdqrumym~mmmmmm&n'nooppss"u#u;ut{v{{̀΀qgdu ^`gdhgdhFfB $$Ifa$gdqroppppppppp qq,q.qqqqq r rarcrernrpr{r}rrrrrsshttttttt"u#u;uv{{{{{{{{{{{{|΀ɹɥɛhuI!hu>*^Jhhu>*^Jhb_hu>*^J hu>*^Jhhu^J hu^Jh#yhu^Jhu h#yhuhhu5 h6$CJ hhCJh#yhhCJ9҉,D]nop“ēœǓȓʓ˓͓ ƾh)]hu0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JUhhMihCJaJhjhUh#yhhCJ h=hu hu5hc/hu5h#yhu5h#yhu>*huhuI!hu^J'qswx҉ۊ+,D\]oÓēƓǓɓʓ͓̓$a$gdeD^gdugdu^gdu $ !Aa$gd)] &`#$gdJY > 00P:p(;/ =!"#$*% Dp51h0:pqr= /!"#$`% 21h:pu/ =!*"8#$% $$If!vh55#v:V l t06,5pyt86T$$If!vh55#v:V l t06,5pyt86T$$If!vh55#v:V l t06,5pyt86T$$If!vh55#v:V l t06,5pyt86T$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l' t06,5 55yt3BT$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l t06,5 55yt3BT$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l' t06,5 55yt3BT$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l' t06,5 55yt3BT$$If$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdA$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdD$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdG$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdK$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdBN$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdrQ$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdT$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/q%kdW$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/q%2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd[$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kd2^$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd\a$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kdd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdg$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kdj$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdn$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd@q$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kdpt$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdw$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdz$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kd}$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd$$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdT$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdލ$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd8$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdh$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kdȝ$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd"$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdR$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt6)#kdܰ$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt6)#2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kd $$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kd<$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kdf$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kdJ$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/7$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kdt$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/1$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/2$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t06,5 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/,$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l t065 5555pFyt/kd$$Ifl֞X *` $  t0644 lapFyt/($$If!vh5585 5 5j#v#v8#v #v #vj:V l44 t0@8++,5585 5 5jp2ytqrT$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l44 t0@8++, 55855555 5 F5 pdytqrTkdf$$IfTl44 X""%j)-B37 8F t0@8,,,,44 lapdytqrTE$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V lY t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkd$$IfTlY X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd($$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTG$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkdX$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTE$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l5 t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkd$$IfTl5 X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTG$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd4$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkdd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd, $$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd\$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTG$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTG$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd0$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd $$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd`$$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd'$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTG$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd+$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTA$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTSkd./$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTE$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkd2$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTK$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkdf6$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTK$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l  t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkd :$$IfTl  X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTE$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@855855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkd=$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTK$$If!v h5585555555 5 F5 #v#v8#v#v#v#v#v #v F#v :V l t0@8, 55855555 5 F5 ytqrTWkdRA$$IfTl X""%j)-B378F t0@8,,,,44 laytqrTj! 888666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH L`L HNormal$CJOJPJQJ_HaJmH sH tH f f cN0 Heading 11$7$8$@&H$'5B*CJ OJQJ\aJ mHphsHl l cN0 Heading 21$7$8$@&H$-56B*CJOJQJ\]aJmHphsHf f cN0 Heading 31$7$8$@&H$'5B*CJOJQJ\aJmHphsHDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List <O< Hmoz-txt-underscore@@@ +9 List Paragraph ^m$nn q Table Grid7:V0`/!` cN0Heading 1 Char+5B*CJ OJPJQJ\^JaJ phtH f/1f cN0Heading 2 Char156B*CJOJPJQJ\]^JaJphtH `/A` cN0Heading 3 Char+5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJphtH B' QB D+0Comment ReferenceCJaJH bH D+0 Comment TextCJaJmHsHtHF/qF D+0Comment Text Char OJPJQJ@j ab@ D+0Comment Subject5\R/R D+0Comment Subject Char5OJPJQJ\P P D+0 Balloon TextCJOJQJaJmHsHtHR/R D+0Balloon Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJP P)pRevision$CJOJPJQJ_HaJmH sH tH 4@4  eD0Header  !4 @4 eDFooter  !.)@. eD Page NumberBB >0 Header CharCJOJPJQJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] VKh  @ w 6AOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVY V!#&1=&GLSPX]NejoKMSYkw 35ST !!=!>!!!""""""'&(<)E*+,]-W.=23456~7t8}9N::;v@AKBCxDGSSSTjUNV'W XyXY$ZZ[M\x]]^&_'``a>bdݴfght>ICNCEEsEtEEEFEFuFuFFFI+JKKNKNKUKUKVKVKggggggggh͋ Ynn!"""""^%_%--..~00112244447777!;!;};};~;~;<<t>>hx";I4Ѿ+9)43 UU@@ LpNetkal Made GowdaI,2,Y,2,H2H3-TT? vk UU@@? LP - % % % TTwZUU@@wELP K Tw\/UU@@wLOverview and Methodology iN2,,2,I288^,!8282222TT0\eUU@@0LP 6 % % % TTw@ UU@@w) LP -Rp @Times New RomanC M UU@@> L`f 24.77%.!2232STT M UU@@ LP TT M UU@@ LP T M  UU@@ LpTh&" WMFC +is represents a =2'!,2",',2', T8w H1UU@@wRLdecreasing trend as compared with the following return rates in the previous years2,,!-,'31!,22,',2N3,!,2H22,!22H31",2!2!,,'22,3!,223'0-,!'TTI a1UU@@ILP Tb S1UU@@bLp(Data provided by !I,,2!223,230 Tw3UU@@wL|institutional research)2'222,!,',,!,2!TT3UU@@LP:TT3$UU@@LP -!G XRp@Times New RomanC C CCW`2C|C ChCU`2C|C q.1|CC \r.1XG* Times ew RomanC-'1 CCz%1 C\dv% % %  TdGXUU@@LG XTYearH,2-TTYGUU@@YLG XP 2" !  X % % %  TW  UU@@W jL  XlGross Accessed M,2''I,,,'(,8 Th  UU@@h  L  XhResponse RateH,'828',H2!-TT  UU@@ L  XP 2" '% LdC F C !??%  % LdC F C !??%  % LdG  G !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % LdCFWCJ!??%  % Ld  W J!??%  % Ld  W J!??% !G\ 3% % %   T\UU@@ LG\ 3dSpring 201182!212223TT\ UU@@LG\ 3P 2" ! \ 3 % % %  Tl \ UU@@ L \ 3X27.2%222STT! \R UU@@! L \ 3P 2" % LdCXF[CX!??%  % LdGX [GX!??%  % Ld X [ X!??%  % Ld X [ X!??%  % Ld X [ X!??%  % LdC\F2C\!??%  % Ld \ 2 \!??%  % Ld \ 2 \!??% !G7  % % %  T7UU@@ LG7 dSpring 201082!212223TT7 UU@@LG7 P 2" ! 7  % % %  Tl 7 UU@@ L 7 X34.5%222STT! 7R UU@@! L 7 P 2" % LdC3F6C3!??%  % LdG3 6G3!??%  % Ld 3 6 3!??%  % Ld 3 6 3!??%  % Ld 3 6 3!??%  % LdC7F C7!??%  % Ld 7  7!??%  % Ld 7  7!??% !G  % % %  TUU@@l LG dSpring 200982!212223TT UU@@lLG P 2" !&" WMFC    % % %  Tl  UU@@ lL  X41.4%222STT! R UU@@! lL  P 2" % LdCFC!??%  % LdG G!??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % LdCFC!??%  % LdCFC!??%  % LdCFC!??%  % LdG G!??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % Ld   !??%  % % %  Tw^UU@@wG L`* Please 28,,',T^UU@@GfLnote that gross (accessed) return rates were utilized in reporting the response rates as this was the 22,2,1!2''",,-,'',2!",2!2",,'H-!,2-,22!,22!213,!,'222',!,,','2'I,'2, Tw` UU@@w<Lfirst year that participants had to agree to participate. !!'0-,!2,3,!,2,2'2,22-1!-,22,!,3,,TT `0 UU@@ LP - % % % Tw7^ UU@@w3LThe declining response rates are a concern but the =2,2,,231!,'222(,",,',",,,23,,!2222-TH_ 7UU@@_ *Lcampus is in a state of transition and thi,,N22''2,',,2!",2'22,222T7TUU@@ Lds may be a 'N-02,,T|U7mUU@@UL\partial 2,!, TwUU@@wLhexplanation. ,32,2,22TTUU@@LP - TTwUU@@wwLP - T`w UU@@wLTA 5H2TT *UU@@ LP-!T+UU@@+aLpoint Likert scale was used to respond to the items (1 = Not Effective to 5 = Highly Effective). 222;2-!',,,H-'2',22!,'222222,,N'!28H2="!,,2,328H120>!!-,2,!TdUU@@LTThe >2, TwtUU@@w]Lsurvey instrument had 38 q'2!2.02'!2N,22,2232TtUU@@]KLuestions divided into three focus areas: Total Campus Enterprise, Academic 2,'22'222,2221!,,!3,2',",,'=2,C-N22'=2,!2!',H-,2-N, TwvUU@@wLlGoals, and PersH2,',228,!'TvUU@@Lonnel, Faculty Relations 222,7-,20C,,22'T`v^UU@@LTand,22TT_vwUU@@_LP TxvUU@@x8LCampus Issues. Demographic information, along with open C,O22'''2,'H,N31!,22-2!2!N,22,221H222,2 TwZUU@@ & WMFC wCiL comment sections, was also included in the survey. The quantitative results of the survey can be seen in ,2NN,2',,22'H,','22,22,222,'2!2.1=2,22,2,2,!,'2'2!2,'2!2.0,,22,(,,32 Tw\ UU@@wBLTable A: Provost s Survey Quantitative Data. Table A provides a q=,2,H8!222'!'82!2-0H3,2,2,H,,>,3,H2!222,',2T< \!UU@@ (Luantitative review of the Provost s job 3,2,2,!,2,H3!2,8!222'"'22% % ( 666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6 66666666666666666666  `."System--@Times New Roman---  2 F_ ?0 2 F_ ?,_' 2 [?_ ?1 2 [p_ ?0 2 [_ ?3 2 [_ ?,_'@Times New Roman---12 p)_SENATE AGENDA ITEM VI.A.1      2 p_ ?  2 _ ?3 2 _ ?3 2 (_ ?2 2 Z_ ?3 2 _ ?3 2 _ ?3 2 _ ?2 2 %_ ?3 2 X_ ?3 2 _ ?32  _12 April 2011    2 _ ?  2 _ ? .2 #_APPROVED FACULTY SENATE    2 _ ? 2  _12 April 2011    2 _ ?  2 ?_ ?  2 _ ?  @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman--@2 #_Provosts Performance Survey Report          2 _ ? 2 _~? 2 _ ?2 _2009  2 _-?#2 _10 Academic Year     2 _ ? 2 _April  2 _5? 2 _, 201   2 _1? 2 _ ? --- 2 +_ ? n2 @B_Faculty Senate Committee on Provost and Presidential Performance (              2 @_CPPP)  2 @_ ? &2 U_Senators: Lynda Co     2 UL_nover ( 2 U|_Chair), =2 U!_Bill Thompson, Phyllis F. Rippey,         2 U_ ?2 i! _Mandeep Singh     2 i_, 2 i_and  %2 i_Netkal Made Gowda      2 i>_ ?--- 2 ~?_ ? 12 ?_Overview and Methodology       2  _ ? --- 2 ?_ ? @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman--Y2 ?4_The following Provosts Evaluation for the year 2009             2 _-?U2 1_2010 is submitted at the request of the Board of 0          G2 ?(_Trustees. The instrument utilized for t     s2 DE_his survey was altered only with the addition of a singular question            2 ?m_that asked respondents if they would like to review the Provosts stated goals for FY2011. The rationale in                       2 ?N_keeping the instrument unaltered was to be able to garner insights from the lo             #2 K_ngitudinal data.    2 _ ? 2 ?_ ?@Times New Roman--- @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman--42 $?_The survey was conducted on      2 $ _-?2 $ _line by e  2 $H_-?k2 $N@_mailing each eligible faculty member a web link to complete the           2 9?_survey.   2 9q_ ? 2 9u_ ?R2 9y/_Eligible faculty had three weeks (opened Feb 9,          2 9_ ?2 9_2011   2 9_ ?(2 9_closed end of Mar 1  2 9n_, 2011  2 9_) and w  2 9_ere 2 9_ ?2 9_given ;2 N? _two separate reminders in additi     12 N_on to the initial invitat   42 N_ion to complete the survey.d     2 Nf_ ? 2 Nk_ ?2 No_179  2 N_ ?)2 N_of the 658 eligible      @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman-@Times New Roman- @Times New Roman--2 c?i_faculty members accessed the Provosts survey. A total of 163 elected to participate, resulting in a gros              2 c_s 72 w?_(accessed) return rate of 27.  2 w_0? 2 w_5? >2 w "_% and a net (participated) return       2 w_rate o2 w _f 24.77%.   2 wT_ ? 2 wY_ ?&2 w]_This represents a  2 ?R_decreasing trend as compared with the following return rates in the previous years               2 k_ ?&2 o_(Data provided by      .2 ?_institutional research)     2 _:? 2 _ ?,@Times New Roman---2 FYear   2 j ?',O--- "2 OGross Accessed    2  OResponse Rated    2 ,O ? '- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !O-- @ !O-- @ !<-- @ !<-- @ !<O-,--- 2 . Spring 2011     2  ? ',O--- 2 O27.2%o  2  O ? '- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !O-- @ !&-- @ !&-- @ !&O-,C--- 2 ,. CSpring 2010     2 ,C ? ',CO--- 2 ,OC34.5%o  2 , OC ? '- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !-- @ !O-- @ !'-- @ !'-- @ !'O-,kD--- 2 T. DkSpring 2009     2 TDk ? ',kOD--- 2 TDOk41.4%o  2 T DOk ? '- @ !C-- @ !C-- @ !C-- @ !C-- @ !CO-- @ !'D-- @ !k-- @ !k-- @ !k-- @ !'D-- @ !k-- @ !k-- @ !'DO-- @ !kO-- @ !kO---- 2 |? _* Please   2 |{f_note that gross (accessed) return rates were utilized in reporting the response rates as this was the          e2 ?<_first year that participants had to agree to participate.      2 _ ?---X2 ?3_The declining response rates are a concern but the      J2 *_campus is in a state of transition and thi    2  _s may be a 2 _partial  2 ?_explanation.    2 _ ? 2 ?_ ?2 ?_A 5  2 X_-?2 ^a_point Likert scale was used to respond to the items (1 = Not Effective to 5 = Highly Effective).                    2 _The 22 ?_survey instrument had 38 q       |2 K_uestions divided into three focus areas: Total Campus Enterprise, Academic              "2 ?_Goals, and Pers   12 _onnel, Faculty Relations q    2 R_and 2 k_ ?_2 o8_Campus Issues. Demographic information, along with open            2 4?i_comment sections, was also included in the survey. The quantitative results of the survey can be seen in               n2 I?B_Table A: Provosts Survey Quantitative Data. Table A provides a q                G2 I (_uantitative review of the Provosts job     --____^^^^^^^^^^^^]]]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\՜.+,0$ hp|  鶹Gz ;Provosts Performance Survey Report: 2009-10 Academic Year Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdeghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ Root Entry F0N Data D1Tablef+<WordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q