Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Stuff

First let me address something that has been bothering me for almost the entire time it has been my pleasure to be invovlved with the blog:  anonymity.  A lot of folks are taking cheap shots at those who did not fill out the dean's evaluations.  Some who did not participate claimed their lack of participation was out of a fear of retribution.  Let me note that practically everyone who participates in this blog does so anonymously.  We fear for our jobs, our reputations and our futures.  It will be difficult to move forward if we are unable or unwilling to have real discussions without such fears.  The blog won't cease to publish your responses, but a few names would be nice.  Also, you all know who I am, so if you have a problem, come see me.  I don't hide and neither should you. 

On a more positive note, the new contract will be unveiled on Monday.  It has been a long four plus years, especially for those involved in the negotiations.  Thank you for your efforts. 

You have received an e-mail about the state legislature.  Please respond.  The boys and girls in Columbus seem to be trying to get SB5 passed under the table.  I have been here almost 28 years and can say with confidence that I would be making considerably less money without a union.  I can also say administrators would be making even more.

Please continue to respond to the dean evaluations listed below.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Faculty Senate Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti

Please forgive format changes that accompanied the posting of  the following document.  Otherwise the document is verbatim.  No further comment.

University of Toledo
Faculty Senate Report on the Administrative Performance of1
Number of respondents: 26 Number of eligible respondents: 50
1.00 = Unsuccessful
2.00 = Needs Improvement

52% response rate
Range of scores
Dean Penny Poplin Gosetti
evaluated by the faculty of The College of Education
Spring 2015
��
page1image5568
3.00 = Meets Expectations 4.00 = Exceeds Expectations
5.00 = Role Model
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s overall performance score............................................ 1.77 Area Page
Administrative Areas Score
Number
  1. Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility 1.96 1
  2. Leadership 1.65 4
  3. Responsibility and Accountability 1.96 7
  4. Communication/Interpersonal Skills 1.83 10
  5. Diversity and Inclusion 2.26 13
  6. Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff 1.50 15
  7. External Relations 1.56 18
  8. Program Development 1.52 21
  9. Problem Solving and Decision-Making 1.38 24
  10. Planning & Organizing 1.74 26
  11. Financial Management 2.12 28
Comments on overall administrative performance
29
page1image15000
1 This assessment would not have been possible without the invaluable service provided by the individuals at The Center for Creative Instruction, including, but not limited to, Bobbi Vaughan and Brian Szabo. This evaluation was administered by the 2014–15 Faculty Senate Executive Committee:
Karen Hoblet, President Kristen Keith, Vice President Linda Rouillard, Past President
Lucy Duhon, Executive Secretary Mike Dowd, at-large MC rep Scott Molitor, at-large MC rep
Marlene Porter, at-large HSC rep, Frederick Williams, at-large HSC rep. Mary Humphrys, OFC Representative
Faculty Senate: 3320 University Hall, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: 419.530.2112; Fax: 419.530.2114; Email: facultysenate@utoledo.edu
Area 1 Dean Poplin Gosetti Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
(a) Does the dean adhere to principles of academic freedom and shared governance? (b) Are processes open and transparent?
(c) Do past decisions indicate credible future leadership?
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 1.......................................... 1.96
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean demonstrates consistent leadership and respect for academic freedom and shared governance, to produce first-best solutions to academic issues and to insure the academic integrity of all college programs.
  • Transparency is a hallmark: the dean actively engages faculty and staff to address issues facing the college and incorporates their input into solutions so that decisions have a college- wide foundation. Decisions are based on core values and serve to guarantee academic in- tegrity throughout the college.
  • Past actions leave no doubt that the dean’s future actions will be trustworthy, and will be made in the best interest of students, faculty, and staff.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 1
    • The dean acts in a way to nurture the understanding of academic freedom and shared
      governance among faculty as a way to preserve the long-term integrity of academic programs.
    • Decision processes of the dean are professional and transparent. Faculty and staff are in- cluded in each stage of the decision-making process. Academic integrity is a key component of each decision. The dean openly accepts responsibility for the ethics and fairness of each decision.
    • Past actions of the dean have been consistent, producing trust in faculty and staff that the dean’s future actions will be ethical and fair.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 6
      • The dean makes decisions with an uncompromising commitment to the principles of aca- demic freedom and shared governance, thus promoting academic integrity across all college programs.
      • Faculty and staff are consistently encouraged by the dean to provide input on the issues facing the college and, once decisions are made, the dean openly discusses the rationale for each decision. The dean’s decisions are ethical and fair. Decisions are made for the right reasons and serve to promote academic integrity.
      • The dean’s past actions instill confidence that future actions will be worthy of faculty and staff trust.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 8
        • The dean does not adhere to principles of academic freedom and shared governance on a
          consistent basis, raising doubts about the commitment to academic integrity.
        • Informs faculty and staff of issues faced by the college, but does so inconsistently and typi- cally after decisions are made. The dean typically does not provide the rationale for her/his decisions. The dean needs coaching to improve impartiality.
        • Past actions of the dean have been inconsistent and do not serve as a credible predictor of future actions.
1
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
page3image1280
Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 9
  • The dean shows little or no respect for either academic freedom or shared governance, and
    little or no regard for academic integrity.
  • The dean does not routinely inform faculty and staff of issues facing the college and does not openly communicate decisions that have been made. No rationale is provided for such decisions other than appearing to suit the dean’s preferences only. The dean does not exhibit a propensity to match words with corresponding actions.
  • Past actions of the dean produce little or no trust that future actions will be ethical or fair. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 1 ...................................... 2
    Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 1 (verbatim)
  1. 1.1  Lack of integrity: The dean chose to move her tenure into a different college arguing that her expertise (higher ed) has nothing to do with the scholarship and expertise housed in JHCoE. The college needs a content expert in the field of teacher education. Lack of transparency: The goal setting and strategies for the college are unknown. The dean did not inform faculty when she made the switch from interim dean to dean; basic example. Lack of decision making: The dean consistently fails to make (timely) decisions. Either the dean is afraid of making decisions and/or has no relevant expertise to make informed decisions. Academic freedom: The dean fully supports academic freedom.
  2. 1.2  The Dean does inform faculty of decisions; however, sometimes she seems as surprised as everyone else when decisions have been made in the Provost’s/President’s office. So, one wonders at her ability to be “in charge” of the college.
  3. 1.3  Penny Poplin-Gosetti shows no respect for academic freedom. For example, she has repeatedly selected department chairs without consultation from the faculty, which is a direct violation of the AAUP contract. This is not surprising since she herself was appointed permanent dean with no search and zero consultation with the faculty. She selected department chairs who were not from our department. This, too, is not surprising. Penny Poplin-Gosetti herself is not tenured in the Judith Herb College of Education. Her own department left the college without any consultation of the faculty in the college. Thus, the faculty does not trust her. College meetings are not structured to engage faculty in meaningful decision making or discussions. Rather, they are filled with guest speakers and other topics that have little relevance or interest to the faculty in the college. The dean keeps files on faculty she does not like, and she threatens faculty who do not cooperate with her.
  4. 1.4  The dean needs to have more communication in order to assure transparency. It often seems like no decisions are being made, which is of concern; however, it is probably more likely that the decisions are being made. There is no discussion of either academic integrity or of shared governance issues. Again, this might not mean there are problems, but since these are issues, no discussion probably means they are being done without discussion.
  5. 1.5  Dean does not adequately provide a rationale for some of her decisions. Most times she finds herself explaining why something was DONE instead of why something needs to be done this way. Faculty feedback usually occurs after the decision is made.
  6. 1.6  the dean demonstrates a respect for shared governance however she is slow to make decisions - I see this is one of the reasons that she does not have support of faculty
  7. 1.7  Dean micromanages small, inconsequential matters but fails to make timely decisions on big issues. Either decisions are delayed or not made at all. Dean does not follow advice of chairs or College Council leadership or members. Strategic plan was discussed, debated and tweaked for a year but never implemented.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 2 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
page4image1280
  1. 1.8  Dean Poplin Gosetti prefers to talk to individuals one at a time rather than in an open forum. It is not unusual to be told to not share what was discussed. Although this might be appropriate for some matters, it is not always appropriate. For example, college or department planning should not be a series of private conversations.
  2. 1.9  The dean appears to only be able to focus on a small number of issues or perhaps even one at a time when there this position would involve being able to coordinate multiple tasks at once. This causes other items to be put off or not handled in a timely way. Things are last- minute or require multiple promptings of her to get them completed. The issue is more about the timeliness and credibility of how issues and needs are met. Academic freedom and shared governance are not the issue.
  3. 1.10  This dean has shown little propensity for shared governance. The dean is much too focused on the minutia of running a college so that she seems to have little time to give to creating a larger vision and moving the college forward in a direction that will be beneficial to the college or increasing enrollment. She has been consistently been told this is a great concern to faculty and there so far, have been no strategies to move in this direction. There are also two departments that have pursued competency-based, self-paced programs and the dean has given no support to move either program forward, even though faculty are willing to put forth extra effort to create the new programs that would help to increase the prestige of the college and potentially be a real marketing tool to increase enrollment. There is little encouragement or support from the dean to do anything innovative and faculty morale is very low as a result.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 3 of 29
Area 2 Dean Poplin Gosetti Leadership
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, traditional leadership attributes should be considered along with attributes that include, but are not limited to the extent to which . . .
  1. (a)  the dean demonstrates insight and motivation as departments and faculty build, strengthen, and refine a cohesive set of academic and research programs,
  2. (b)  the dean’s actions and resource allocations are demonstrably free of favoritism or bias,
  3. (c)  the dean effectively represents and advocates for the mission and visibility of the college within
    the university,
  4. (d)  the dean publicly recognizes the contributions of others in successful college-level performance
    and actions, and
  5. (e)  the dean’s professional and social behavior serve as an exemplar for faculty, staff and students.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 2.......................................... 1.65
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean is a proven leader in all aspects of job described above.
  • Faculty, students, and chairs consistently look to the dean to provide inspiration and exper- tise throughout the development of a project.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
    • Clearly stands out as a leader in most or all aspects of job described above.
    • Faculty, staff or students recognize the significant benefit from dean’s contribution to a project.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 4 The dean consistently demonstrates a leadership role in most aspects of job described above.
      Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 9 The dean shows some interest in and talent for the leadership role described above, though
      he/she will not be effective without coaching.
      Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 13
      The dean shows little or no interest or ability in providing above mentioned leadership to faculty, staff, or students.
      Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 2 ...................................... 0 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
      Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 2 (verbatim)
  1. 2.1  There is no leadership. If there is leadership, then it is not transparent and lacks impact.
  2. 2.2  The college has not been able to move ahead to develop new programs or implement changes as it appears very difficult for the Dean to make decisions. There are initiatives that have stalled out due to lack of strong college leadership.
  3. 2.3  I believe the Dean struggles to articulate and implement a vision for the college.
4
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 2: Leadership
page6image1120
  1. 2.4  Poplin-Gosetti has created a culture of malaise in the college. For example, while recruitment and enrollment should be our top priorities, she seems to have no idea how to take leadership to grow programs or enrollment. When faculty come forward with ideas to grow enrollment, she either ignores them or actively delays decisions to the point where it is too late to do anything. Our enrollment continue to drop and she doesn’t seem to care. Faculty have become totally demoralized. Many no longer attend meetings because any effort on the part of faculty to grow programs is entirely ignored. Meetings do not focus on the important issues in the college such as recruitment, enrollment, retention or high quality programs. The dean has created haves and have nots. Departments that patronize her are rewarded with new faculty lines. Departments that speak up about the total lack of leadership on the part of the dean are penalized by not receiving faculty lines. The dean tries to take credit for the work of others. For example, a faculty member suggested a faculty lounge for brainstorming new ideas. Many months later, she announces the lounge without any recognition to the person who suggested it. Not a single item in the college strategic plan has been implemented. In fact, not one has even been started. The dean does not advocate for the college. Whenever the faculty ask her something, all she does is repeat back what the Provost said. Additionally, she cannot effectively advocate for the faculty or college. For example, the college of Social Justice and Human Service (where she holds tenure) is in the process of duplicating courses from the College of Education. She cannot advocate for our college because to do so would mean she would be going against her own college and husband, Ron Opp, who is the person pushing for the duplicative courses. The dean has a long history of unprofessional behavior that includes telling mistruths to the Board of Trustees, encouraging doctoral students to become involved in college and university politics, and backstabbing anyone who disagrees with her. The dean is not a leader in teacher education. Local K-12 leaders have openly criticized her as lacking leadership and failing to move teacher education forward. She has no vision for our future and seems to lack any sense of direction. In fact, the dean is not a scholar. She was barely promoted and tenured. She received full professor designation outside of any peer review that we are aware of. She has never written a grant in her life. A very weak scholar cannot lead a college in research and teaching. She wastes faculty time by asking for proposals only to later say we aren’t doing that. For example, we spent time working on “clusters” only to learn we weren’t going to have clusters. She takes proposals for centers only to later deny any funding for centers. She takes proposals for new initiatives and fails to support any of them. Rather, she focuses on trivial matters such as the wording of the proposal or which faculty member will talk about the proposal. To date, not a single proposal that has been brought forward by faculty has been supported.
  2. 2.5  We have a lack of mission and vision. The dean seems to be in reaction mode most of the time, afraid to act until something forces the issue. Though I think the dean tries, she has a general lack of presence in the college.
  3. 2.6  I so love the JHCOE. This has been heartbreaking to watch poor leadership make us look like a boat without sails. I think she is very introverted which is not a bad thing, but when she pulls back from our community partners and does not engage, then that is problematic. This semester, she is not been around much. Even before then, she didn’t really try to engage the faculty. Her manner of engagement included calling people to her office to talk. She rarely ventured to see the faculty or staff.
  4. 2.7  We don’t seem to be gaining any ground within the university community - our dean does not seem to have a voice that is heard we have not gained ground in the surrounding school systems
  5. 2.8  Dean fails to lead in the area of building enrollment at the undergraduate level or supporting graduate education by advocating for greater support for funding graduate assistantships. Little or no funding for travel to conferences by faculty. No funding for professional development
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 5 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 2: Leadership
page7image1120
activities for faculty. Very little to no connection with undergraduate or graduate students.
  1. 2.9  The Dean seems to play favorites and does not support faculty equally
  2. 2.10  Dean Poplin Gosetti means to advocate for our college but will need a better understanding of what we do or could be doing to speak strongly for us. It is also a bit problematic that her home department is not in our college.
  3. 2.11  First example: Once the search committee for the C&I chair competed the development of the job description, meeting the timeline requirements it then took almost a month and a half with multiple email reminders from search chair asking when the job would be posted. This put us behind in the search process. Second Example: When Leigh Chiarelott informed dean that he would be stepping out of his chair position she did not act to fill the position in a timely manner. The department did not have a chair from during July 2013 and an interim was appointed in early August. the interim (Dr. Kadaravek) was very clear that she would serve as interim for Fall 2013 semester only. The dean did not appoint a new chair until February 2014. the faculty did not have an acting chair at the start of the Spring semester. Not one was taking care of workload, schedules, student issues, etc. That leaves the dean to fill in when the contract is clear that workload and such are to be matters worked out by the chair and the faculty–not the dean. It was in this time that a faculty member did not have assigned workload and when the dean realized it the spring semester was started, the work that person would have done was hired out by the fall semester interim chair, and it was to late to give workload as it had been assigned. This faculty member was paid during the Spring 14 semester but didn’t work. The distribution of workload then became inequitable across faculty. Faculty are not happy about this. Third Example: The literacy faculty are overworked and we have been hiring parttime people to fill in when there is enough workload for an additional person. NCATE/CAEP Spa for this area may not look favorably on this. The Dean indicate the hiring line would open but then dragged her feet and in Spring 15 then decided to not look for a new literacy person. Yet there are 2 lecturers/visitors each carrying 5 course a semester workloads. The faculty members are overworked with preparing CAEP reports, NCATE reports, State of Ohio assessment reports, and UT assessment reports in addition to the other work and teaching they are doing.
  4. 2.12  The dean does not in any way no how to motivate faculty. In fact, her actions or lack thereof are very demotivating. For example, when faced with the possibility of submitting a 6 million dollar grant that required cost share, she was not willing to consider it, even though the cost share was not taking a penny out of the college budget. She just did not want to commit. She clearly does not stand out as a leader and it is very hard to think of the benefits she has offered our college. Since Penny has taken leadership, our enrollment has dropped continuously and no effort has been expended to turn this around. Faculty were told at the first college meeting of the year that there was money to spend for several positions and yet no person has been hired for marketing. She absolutely is not a person I would look to for inspiration or expertise. Once again, I think her biggest weaknesses is that she is micro-managing everything to the point of nitpicking apart grant proposals and workload leaving no time to put forth on the larger vision of the college. I thought this was the role of a dean and yet, she has offered no leadership in our college.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 6 of 29
Area 3 Dean Poplin Gosetti Responsibility and Accountability
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the extent of deans responsibility and accountability for decisions, resource allocations, and outcomes.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 3.......................................... 1.96
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean takes on tasks outside of normal job without being asked. Able to recognize the need and fill in the gap. A demonstrated leader in modeling professional behavior and demeanor to others.
  • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes and then proactively works with faculty, chairs, and staff to develop plans to move the college forward.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 1
    • The dean can always be depended upon to follow through with assigned tasks. Takes on
      tasks outside of normal job with enthusiasm when asked.
    • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes and welcomes constructive feedback from others.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 4
      • The dean usually follows through with assigned tasks by ensuring accuracy and timeliness.
        Always acts in a professional manner when dealing with others.
      • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 12
        • The dean cannot be depended upon to follow through with assigned tasks because of quality
          or timeliness. Does not display professional behavior consistently.
        • The dean denies responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or outcomes.
          Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 7
      • The dean takes no responsibility for task accuracy, quality, or deadlines. Becomes defensive
        when given feedback about performance.
      • The dean blames subordinates for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or outcomes.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 3 ...................................... 2 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 3 (verbatim)
  1. 3.1  For example, 2 years ago, Penny gave a college presentation on the rapid decline of student enrollment and retention. Despite this insight, no efforts were made to stop the decline and to recruit/ retain more student.
  2. 3.2  Certain aspects of her job (e.g., dossier reviews) have not been completed. The process is not moved past her office because the reviews have not been completed.
7
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
page9image1200
  1. 3.3  The dean is defensive when faculty suggest improvement. For example, faculty have show her where our college web page is missing information and contains inaccurate information. She got angry when this was pointed out. She blamed everyone else for the problem. Two years later, nothing has changed to correct the web page. Numerous faculty have advised her to replace the associated dean and she ignores this. Others have urged the selection of a graduate dean for the college. This, too, is ignored. Faculty have advocated for enrollment growth mechanisms. This, too, is ignored. She blames everything on someone else (the provost, lack of funding, department chairs, faculty). Whenever someone suggests a need, she simply replies that the Provost won’t approve it or there is no money. Poplin-Gosetti seems totally incapable of making decisions. Any decision takes her months and months to make. For example, people have failed grant deadlines because she micromanaged by reading and editing proposals (a faculty member’s job), adding rows and columns on a budget (the job of the research office), and delaying support until it was too late. Another example is selection of department chairs. Seven months passed from the time Leigh Chiarelott announced he was stepping down as chair and a department chair was appointed by the dean. We were without a department chair for 4-5 weeks from the time Leigh Chiarelott physically vacated the position and a new chair was appointed. The department was not consulted on the appointment (a violation of the CBA); she appointed Joan Kaderavek (who is not from our department). Joan made it clear that she would serve as chair for only 1 semester. We spent an additional 7 weeks without a chair after Joan stepped down. Once we started to demand a resolution to, again, having no chair, the dean called for nominations or applications from within our department for department chair (only after Joan had actually left the position and weeks had gone by without a chair). Bob Schultz was the only person who agreed to take the position. More time passed without any word from the Dean. Our department then demanded a meeting with her. Many expressed they could support Bob as chair (or even interim chair if she conducted a national search). Instead, Penny appointed a chair without widespread consultation with the department. That person has been asking for months when he can get out of the position because he did not want to take it in the first place. That brings us to the October 31 surprise announcement of chair searches being approved and our request for consultation on the process, ad, and committee members. That was ignored and we learned a few months ago that a committee was formed. Then, she micromanaged the ad for department chair to the point that it hit the Chronicle of Higher Education too late in the hiring process. The current applicants are not acceptable. If you add the weeks we were physically without a chair in the last year (12 weeks), that is not only 3 months with our department in limbo but 3 months where there was no one for students to go to with questions. Both of these vacancies preceded the start of a semester (5 weeks before the start of fall semester and 7 weeks at the start of spring semester). Many students were complaining to faculty and desperate for answers to things (plans of study for MA and Doctoral programs, scholarships, advising, admission, etc). These type of dumb moves impact recruitment and retention! On October 31, our department faculty was shocked to hear during a public meeting with Nagi that our chair positions had been approved. Penny never informed our department of this. Later that day, we discussed in our department meeting (with the Associate Dean present) that we were shocked to hear in a public meeting about the department chair positions being approved. There had been no communication with us. At that same department meeting, we clearly (and in a unified fashion with no disagreement) stated that the department wanted to be consulted on the process of the chair search, the ad, and on who would serve on the committee. Instead, we found out that a committee has been formed without any consultation with our department.
  2. 3.4  No outright denial is observed, but no responsibility taken either. This goes back to communi- cation. If something isn’t going right (a rogue program, or a lost of potentially lost graduate contract), we just don’t hear about it. Outcomes are a mystery
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 8 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
page10image1200
  1. 3.5  The Dean has very poor time management. Some products coming from her office are 1-2 months late. She is not transparent with resource allocation. I have sat through meeting where she tried to subversively blame overworked subordinates for her poor time management or procrastination. I am not sure why certain important decisions cannot be made in a timely way, but she does not seem to understand that her subordinates are dealing with the consequences. Very out of touch emotionally and ethically,
  2. 3.6  I know the dean travels but rarely hear how the trip related to university/college business I would like to hear more about how the college is represented at professional meetings; what are the “battles” that are being fought for our college; I do not think the dean displays unpro- fessional behavior
  3. 3.7  I think timelines are especially challenging for Dr. Poplin Gosetti. Whether it is responding to email or reviewing dossiers for promotion, responses seem to be much longer than appropriate. Often this appears that she is “not responding” at all.
  4. 3.8  The dean is very defensive when asked about lack of decision making or why resources are not being allocated to the College is areas of growth or where sustained support is needed (for example, literacy education faculty position which the College faculty ranked as its number one priority for new hires). When departments don’t function successfully, chairs are blamed even when the Dean doesn’t support the chair’s actions regarding faculty.
  5. 3.9  Very slow to respond
  6. 3.10  Dean Poplin Gosetti has a tendency to attribute responsibility to faculty or staff for tasks or outcomes that only the dean has authority to complete.
  7. 3.11  See prior comments and examples. The dean in not timely in completing tasks. She appears to only be able to focus on one or two things at a time.
  8. 3.12  The dean does not follow through on tasks. For example, one faculty member was offered an opportunity to be a visiting scholar at another university and Penny did not get the paperwork completed in time to make that happen. She has shown this same lack of attention to grant submissions by waiting until the very last day to review and approve, causing some faculty to miss those opportunities. In both these cases, the college could be moved a step ahead and given more prestige by faculty scholars and grant money but she did not make these kinds of things a priority. She also blames subordinates for outcomes. I am aware of two instances where she blamed her budget personnel for not getting things done when in reality, it was her not getting the information needed to the personnel. She also has not followed through on committee recommendations that have been waiting on approval.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 9 of 29
Area 4 Dean Poplin Gosetti
Communication/Interpersonal Skills
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
(a) The extent to which the job requires the dean to explain, describe, persuade, negotiate, and generally convey intended meanings and information to faculty, students, chairs, and staff. (b) The extent to which the dean uses appropriate media to convey particular messages or infor-
mation.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 4.......................................... 1.83
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
Takes on responsibility to initiate communication with faculty, chairs, staff, or students. Works consistently to develop team effectiveness.
Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean shows concern and commitment to ensuring excellent communication practices.
  • The dean demonstrates teamwork capabilities and makes suggestions on how faculty, chairs, and staff can work together more effectively.
    Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 6
    • The dean provides and presents verbal communication accurately and professionally.
    • The dean does not require assistance to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
    • The dean consistently demonstrates teamwork capabilities when working with faculty, chairs,
      and staff.
      Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 8
      • The dean shows limited effort to communicate and to respond to complaints, but does so inconsistently. Information stated is not understood by others and is often incorrect.
      • The dean often requires assistance to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
      • The dean shows limited effort working with faculty, chairs, or staff, but does so inconsistently.
        Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 10
    • The dean shows little or no effort to communicate to faculty, students, chairs, and staff on
      a consistent basis.
    • The dean does not effectively respond to complaints. Unable to resolve interpersonal con- flicts.
    • The dean demonstrates little or no effort toward working with faculty, chairs, or staff. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 4 ...................................... 2
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 4 (verbatim)
      4.1 A mediator was hired to take care of interpersonal conflicts.
      4.2 She does a good job leading the discussion in the faculty meetings. She has handled some challenging personnel issues with frank discussions with the parties involved.
10
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
page12image1160
  1. 4.3  Our college is in disarray because of Penny Poplin Gosetti. There is infighting among faculty because of the climate of “haves” and “have nots” that has been created and she seems unable to comprehend that her actions (lying, not making decisions, not advocating for the college, being tenured in a different college, etc) have created the conflicts and consternation. I personally asked Penny why she formed a department search committee without consulting us (especially when we demanded on October 31st to be consulted). She said she was in a hurry and went ahead and that she thought I would be happy with the people she picked. We waited 2 years for a chair to be hired, so why the big hurry now? What faith do we have that we will be consulted on the person selected if we are treated this way on the process before it begins? And, after we specifically requested being consulted? When the dean has been made aware of divisions among faculty, she chastises the messenger, portrays the majority as the minority, or blames others. She has failed to work on interpersonal issues.
  2. 4.4  Too little communication with faculty.
  3. 4.5  Maybe poor communication is the source of all the problems? She leave faculty wondering what is going on. Staff and faculty have come to understand that associate dean is the de facto dean and the actual Dean will not help you. However, the reason for this disengagement is unknown.
  4. 4.6  I am often in the building and I rarely see the dean outside of her office Initially the dean showed concern and commitment to ensuring excellent communication practices with the members of the college as demonstrated in the way college meetings were conducted. The commitment seems to have been lost. I cannot blame this entirely on the dean as I think the senior leaders of the university failed to support anyone not in the “inner-circle” and therefore any idea that did not come from them did not receive support. Their ideas were the only ones viewed as worthy and all others withered.
  5. 4.7  not really sure what the message is.... teamwork is not demonstrated
  6. 4.8  Dean does not support chairs equitably. One chair and one department is favored over the others. Previous deans would walk around the various hallways and stop in faculty offices to chat or share information. Little or no recognition of faculty contributions or efforts. Indeed, the opposite is true. Faculty are blamed for problems that stem from the Dean’s office.
  7. 4.9  Dean Poplin Gosetti does not communicate well. She is understandable when she does com- municate but she does not often use methods outside of personal conversations. She does not send information to the college on email and often college meetings run out of time. She needs help to know what she should communicate and then she may take too much time to send a message. In addition, we have significant challenges in some areas in working as a team. She has not made visible efforts to develop teamwork in these areas.
  8. 4.10  I think the dean communicates with chairs but whether it is productive or not is not at all clear. It appears as if the Associate Dean is supporting her greatly–more that one would expect. This leaves the Associate Dean overburdened. The dean does not persuade or negotiate with faculty well. I am not inclined to write about specific interactions but faculty and chairs who have interacted with her have not had favorable things to say.
  9. 4.11  The dean shows very little capability to resolve interpersonal conflicts. She also does not demonstrate the ability to work with faculty in getting important responsibilities completed. For example, there currently are problems in many of the departments in our college that she has not done anything to resolve. Only when the provost provided funds did she offer help to one of the departments that is dysfunctional. The department is dysfunctional in part because the dean has moved so slowly in getting it a permanent chair through advertising and recruitment. At the first college meeting of the year, the dean stated that she had funds to move forward with hiring for some of these positions and the C&I department still has a temporary chair and has had it for a year. When asked to handle items such as grant signatures, she
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 11 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
page13image1160
has to be reminded several times up the deadline of submission making it very stressful to get things done in a timely manner. She has shown very little ability to bring together the college or departments together in teamwork. Very few faulty attend college meetings because even they are a waste of time with very little handled on a college-wide scale.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 12 of 29
Area 5 Dean Poplin Gosetti Diversity and Inclusion
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
(a) The extent to which the dean promotes a diverse and inclusive culture throughout the college, including recruitment and retention of diverse mix of faculty, staff, and students.
(b) Engages in strategies that encourage diversity of thought and participation.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 5.......................................... 2.26
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean has clear strategic understanding of the benefits of diversity and inclusion in decision-making.
  • The dean creates solid relationships with people who think and act differently from self.
  • The dean includes diversity and inclusion goals in college planning.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0 The dean is able to objectively challenge assumptions about others based on their differences.
    The dean encourages committees, groups, and departments to seek out diverse opinions. The dean actively participates in campus diversity programs.
    Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 12
    • The dean makes an effort to provide forums and training to faculty, staff, and students on
      the importance and practice of diversity.
    • The dean models inclusive communication and diversity of thinking for others.
      Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 5
      • It appears the dean needs coaching on laws and university policies related to harassment
        and workplace discrimination, along with the enforcement of those laws and policies.
      • The dean does not always consider diverse opinions or the impact of decisions on diverse others.
      • The dean complies with university requirements on diversity, but makes little effort to enact the spirit of diversity in the college.
        Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 6
    • The dean may not recognize own biases and assumptions about others.
    • The dean does not have a clear grasp of the appropriateness of communication with others who are different from self.
    • The dean needs more understanding of benefits accruing from having a diverse college. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 5 ...................................... 3
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
13
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 5: Diversity and Inclusion
page15image1200
Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 5 (verbatim)
  1. 5.1  Absolutely, no diversity or inclusive of culture exists in the college.
  2. 5.2  The dean supports only people who side with her. For example, a department that spoke positively about her to the provost was rewarded with a faculty line. A department that spoke out against her was denied a faculty line when it is desperately needed. Others are ignored, punished through lack of resources or raises, or by neglect (taking forever to make decisions until it is too late). Any faculty member who speaks against her is denied resources or raises. Conduct a check on who has asked for raises and who has gotten them. There is no mechanism in the college to grow new ideas. A select few favored ideas are entertained but nothing gets done. Ideas are dying on the vine. There is no attention being given to creating a diverse and inclusive culture in the college.
  3. 5.3  The dean started out strong with college meetings intended to bring out ideas. I think the dean then shifted into survival mode. There is no indication of a plan for recruitment or retention of diverse faculty, staff, or students–even though we have several searches under way
  4. 5.4  Does not seem to care that the JHCOE student is in the tank. She was real happy about having put diversity on the strategic plan, but it seem the strategic plan was just for show. Why hasn’t the Dean used that strategic plan to lead our faculty in develop initiatives with our community partners?
  5. 5.5  however, I do not know of any trainings that have occurred
  6. 5.6  There is little to no attention paid to the issue of diversity by the Dean. There is no discussion at College meetings about racial bias by faculty toward students of color and international students. This is a serious problem that is costing us students especially at the graduate level.
  7. 5.7  I don’t see that she shows evidence of this at all. But she has not been in a position to hire faculty and so I don’t see a lack of focus or non-focus. I have not experienced the inclusion of diversity training or inclusion goals at college level meetings which is where I would interact with the dean. I marked no response because i don’t see that she in unsuccessful as described but also don’t see her as successful either. I would not agree that she has done the things listed under “Meets Expectations” but I don’t see that “Needs improvement” fits either. The diversity focus is just not apparent.
  8. 5.8  I do not think the dean understands how to communicate with others who are in the college of education. She certainly does nothing to promote across college communication or diversity in activities.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 14 of 29
Area 6 Dean Poplin Gosetti Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which he/she issuccessful in the following activities:
(a) attracting, developing, and retaining high-quality faculty and staff, (b) conflict resolution, and
(c) recruitment of (or grooming) faculty members for administrative positions.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 6.......................................... 1.50
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean, in consultation with faculty and chairs, advances the college by actively engaging stakeholders in strategic visioning, assessing and aligning faculty and staff needs with both students’ and college needs, and assigning such resources appropriately.
  • The dean consistently demonstrates an ability to turn conflicts into opportunities.
  • The dean takes explicit actions to identify and groom faculty for possible appointments to
    future openings in chair or associate dean positions.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
    • The dean is an active participant in recruitment and selection of faculty and staff. He/she sells the college to prospective recruits and devotes resources to retain high-quality faculty and staff.
    • The dean maintains openness and transparency in communication with faculty and staff; interpersonal skill set is strong.
    • The dean encourages faculty to self-identify as candidates for future opening in a chair or associate dean positions, and provides resources for training suitable candidates.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 3
      • The dean recognizes the importance of recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and
        staff and takes steps to improve the processes.
      • The dean is able to adapt interpersonal communication styles to meet needs of faculty and staff. The dean is successful in resolving conflicts.
      • The dean looks for ways to groom faculty for possible openings in chair or associate dean positions.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 6
        • The dean is involved in recruitment of personnel, but only limited effort is devoted toward
          retaining high-quality faculty and staff.
        • The dean needs coaching to improve related skills in conflict resolution, listening, emotional control, etc.
        • The dean displays some effort or interest in grooming faculty for chair or associate dean positions that are known to be vacated in the near future.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 15
      • The dean is not actively involved in recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and
        staff.
      • The dean’s interpersonal skill set is very weak. The dean is unsuccessful in conflict resolution.
      • When chair and associate dean positions are known to be vacated in the near future, the dean makes no timely effort to identify faculty as possible candidates for such positions.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 6 ...................................... 2 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
15
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
page17image1360
Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 6 (verbatim)
  1. 6.1  The dean has failed to try to keep good faculty. One of the top grant getters at UT is in the College of Education and she is letting that person go to another college. The dean has failed to garner resources in a timely fashion that will allow for hires where needed. The dean has no vision for growth. For example, the vocational education faculty is retiring and she has made no effort to try to create a vision for growth or hire replacements. The college is down to very few programs because she has failed to support potential growth areas.
  2. 6.2  The dean seems to shy away from conflict resolution. She exhibits great emotional control, and tries to listen.
  3. 6.3  Very slow about things. The JHCOE cannot afford to move as such a slow rate. If you do, then please communicate why the pace is so slow. Again, faculty are left wondering.
  4. 6.4  The dean recognizes the importance of recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and staff and takes steps to improve the processes. There seems to be conflict in our college and the dean needs coaching to improve related skills in conflict resolution. I am not aware of any grooming of faculty for any leadership positions that may be available.
  5. 6.5  One department went six weeks without a chair in 2013, and seven weeks without a chair in late fall, 2013 and early spring, 2014. This suggests that the Dean does not value the leadership in the department. We have not hired any new full time tenure track faculty or Lecturers under this Dean, so there has been no attention to recruitment.
  6. 6.6  Not concerned about attracting or retaining quality faculty. Very poor in conflict resolution.
  7. 6.7  Dean Poplin Gosetti has not been able to resolve conflicts in our college. She tends to give into those who complain the loudest in spite of the fact they are generally problematic. We have had two chair positions open for two years. A series of interim chairs have been appointed semester by semester. Multiple times the interim was appointed weeks after the previous appointment ended. In one case the department was without any chair for seven weeks. It rare that the next interim chair is appointed such that there is not a gap between chairs. She is making no efforts to groom faculty for future chair or associate dean positions. She also takes advantage of or uses faculty to complete chair or associate dean work but will not give any consideration to promoting those individuals. This work is often on top of faculty assignments.
  8. 6.8  When Leigh Chiarelott informed the dean that he would be stepping out of his chair position she did not act to fill the position in a timely manner. The department did not have a chair during July 2013 and an interim was appointed in mid-August. The interim (Dr. Kadaravek) was very clear that she would serve as interim for Fall 2013 semester only. The dean did not look for a new chair in the mean time and did not appoint a new interim chair until February 2014. The faculty did not have an acting chair at the start of the Spring semester. Not one was taking care of workload, schedules, student issues, etc. That leaves the dean to fill in when the contract is clear that workload and such are to be matters worked out by the chair and the faculty–not the dean. In Fall 2014 a line to search for a C&I department chair was opened an a committee was formed. The dean struggled to find someone who would serve as chair because so many are overloaded with accreditation and program development. Once the search committee was formed it competed the development of the job description in November 2014, meeting the timeline requirements they were asked to meet. The job description was given to the dean. It then took almost a month and a half with regular email reminders from search committee chair to get the job would be posted. This puts us behind in the search process and decreases our likeliness to find a suitable candidate for this fall. Out current interim is not interested in serving beyond this year and so it is not clear where we will be at the end of the semester. There has been no effort to groom faculty for chair or associate dean positions. In fact, some who are interested and qualified have been told no directly. For reasons that are not
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 16 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
page18image1360
clear, the Dean has been made aware of the need to hire a literacy faculty member to replace a retired faculty member. Originally she said she would but has since declined. There are two people hired as staff that each teach 5 classes a semester. There is another person who teaches 2 courses. There is a clear need for a faculty member given the number of course that need to be delivered. Each one of the 3 literacy faculty have also been writing CAEP reports, NCATE reports, State Assessment reports, University Assessment reports in addition to teaching and other leadership or service that they provide. Literacy serves students in multiple programs as required by the State of Ohio. Her lack of support for this program is unfortunate.
  1. 6.9  Faculty have consistently expressed their concern for the low enrollment in our college and many have made efforts to create innovations that might attract more students and high quality faculty or chairs. The dean offers no answers for recruitment. In the C&I department there has been an interim chair for a year and knowing this, the dean did not get the position description approved to advertise the position until almost Christmas. As a result, strong candidates have not been applying for the job. Faculty also expressed their concern that late advertising would result in poor quality candidates and it has done just that. As mentioned previously, conflicts are ongoing in this college and it is largely due to such poor leadership that ignores the issues and does nothing to carry forward a larger vision of the college. Instead, she micro-manages the minutia of the job and I think this leaves her little time to look at the larger picture and needs.
  2. 6.10  The Dean appears threatened by those people who have great potential to assume positions of leadership. She also appears afraid to say no to others whom she sees as powerful and instead areas to their demands at the expense of others. She has not attended to several personnel issues that need attention within departments. She seems content to allow faculty to create unrest and not do their jobs while she expects those who are already going above and beyond to take up the slack. “Difficult” faculty are allowed to shirk their responsibilities. The Dean knew that there was serious need for two faculty positions in the literacy area and did not argue convincingly for either position.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 17 of 29
Area 7 Dean Poplin Gosetti External Relations
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the attributes described below and also the degree to which your dean promotes college programs and your students to outside constituen- cies.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 7.......................................... 1.56
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean relates effectively with external stakeholders to advance the mission of the uni- versity. Effectively recruits students, enriches relationships with past donors, cultivates new donors and solicits gifts for both college and department activities.
  • The dean forges very productive relationships with other important stakeholders such as government officials and media representatives. The dean demonstrates prowess in raising funds for capital improvements, scholarships, and other long-term projects that span all departments and programs.
  • The dean handles difficult personalities with ease and grace.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
    • The dean balances his/her schedule to spend appropriate amounts of time on the devel- opment of critically important external relationships (alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials and media representatives), resulting in increased external funding of activities across most departments and programs.
    • The dean’s relationships are productive and conflicts are few and relatively minor in nature. Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 3
      • The dean makes a concerted effort to engage important external stakeholders and form constructive relationships with alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials, media representatives and other important community leaders. The dean is successful is securing external funding to support the activities of most departments and programs.
      • The dean’s relationships are constructive and moderately productive. Conflicts with external parties are few.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 4
        • The dean understands the importance of external relationships, but spends little time or effort on developing these relationships. The dean has some involvement in raising money for specific projects or purposes, but does not routinely engage in fundraising for projects or purposes spanning most departments and programs.
        • The dean’s relationships with external stakeholders are weak and unproductive and will continue to be unsuccessful without coaching.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 11
        • The dean is unsuccessful in fundraising or donor development of important external stake-
          holders (alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials, etc.).
        • The dean’s relationships with external stakeholders are strained and unproductive. Is un- successful in securing external funds to support college/department activities.
          Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 7 ...................................... 8 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
18
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 7: External Relations
page20image1160
Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 7 (verbatim)
  1. 7.1  The dean is not seen as a leader by K-12 superintendents or principals. I know this from personal communication with others who are frustrated with her inability to form partnerships with the schools, move initiatives forward, or improve teacher education at UT. Fundraising for our college has been zero.
  2. 7.2  I believe the dean is putting a lot of energy into this, but haven’t had examples of successes. I think it’s early in her tenure as dean to judge this–she reports reaching out to many con- stituencies and carries a heavy travel schedule
  3. 7.3  Horrible. Absolutely disappointing. I think she is good about sustaining established donors. We were going to talk about this topic at our last faculty meeting, but it got pushed of the agenda due to poor management of the faculty meeting.
  4. 7.4  I am not aware of the work of the dean in developing relationships with external stakeholders, alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials and media rep- resentatives. Our foundations representative is at most of our college meetings and sometimes speaks - he seems to be doing good work for our college. I do not know how the dean is involved in that work because we don’t usually hear. I don’t know that any dean discusses the work of fundraising with faculty/staff. I do know that the college shares a box in the tower and during football games faculty are invited to interact with guests that are invited to games. I am not aware of the process for selecting invitees.
  5. 7.5  information is not shared regarding fundraising success/non-success I believe there is a general feeling that the Dean is not connected with our stakeholders (local schools)
  6. 7.6  Relationship with area schools, superintendents, and community leaders is horrible. Many superintendents have complained about the lack of leadership in this area by this Dean.
  7. 7.7  Dean Poplin Gosetti does not know what or how to communicate with our stakeholders such as K-12 superintendents. She puts off meeting with this group. She has recently begun to visit superintendents one by one but she has been in the dean’s office for two years.
  8. 7.8  Ihavebeeninvolvedforthepast2yearsintryingtocreateanewpathwaytoteacherpreparation that could be an excellent strategy to recruit new students to our college. This program would be competency-based (CBE), self-paced and provide online learning opportunities and early clinical experiences for students teachers. CBE is a strong movement across the nation now in HE and if this program were supported by the dean, faculty were ready to move forward. In fact, faculty moved forward as much as possible last year even without the support of the dean. She offered one roadblock after another to prevent the success of this program. The program received the recognition of the American Federation of Teachers Union (AFT) who called a meeting at UT to show their support. This meeting was attended by the President and Provost of UT, Toledo Public School District administrators, and UT faculty. Even after showing national support for such a program within our college, the dean has done nothing to help us move the program forward. I have not heard of her getting an external funding for our college and this would have been one of those opportunities that she could have followed up on that might have proved valuable. Faculty even asked her to work with the college’s fundraiser to solicit funds for this program and she has still done nothing. It has been very frustrating and discouraging to have faculty involvement, national support, local school district support, and yet not have support or interest of our own dean. Several of us met with the dean to ask for matching funds on a $6 million dollar grant to get the program moving forward. She would not have had to put forth any dollars, only agree to sign the grant that would have cost match through other existing avenues. She could not even agree to that even though faculty wanted to move forward.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 19 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 7: External Relations
page21image1160
7.9 Because there is a serious lack of communication from the Dean to faculty about anything, I feel I have no evidence of what she is doing in this area.
7.10 This area is the major weakness of the Dean.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 20 of 29
Area 8 Dean Poplin Gosetti Program Development
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which she/he is successful in insuring viability and growth, financial stability, and relevance for academic and research programs.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 8.......................................... 1.52
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean clearly stands out as a leader in academic and research program development and growth.
  • The dean is a strong advocate of faculty’s professional development leading to program devel- opment. Financial investments in programs are based on both relevant data and leadership decisions of the dean, made in consultation with faculty and chairs.
  • The dean works constantly to raise the relevance, image, viability, and vibrance of all aca- demic and research program, and devotes resources to achieve the college’s long-term aca- demic and research goals.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
    • The dean is a leader in promoting academic and research programs and insuring their sustain- ability by assigning adequate resources for program needs and for professional development of faculty.
    • The dean utilizes best evidence when making financial investments in both high-performing and promising academic and research programs.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 2
      • The dean consistently shows interest in developing all academic and research programs, and
        provides input when appropriate.
      • The dean understands professional development of faculty is essential for program develop- ment, sustainability, and growth.
      • The dean may assign program responsibilities to direct reports (e.g., chairs), but keeps on top of program management goals.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 9
        • The dean shows some interest and ability in the development and sustainability of a selec- tive group of academic and research programs, and demonstrates only limited interest in professional development of faculty.
        • The dean needs coaching to improve related management skills or understanding of current academic and research programs.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 14
      • The dean gives only passing attention to discussions of academic and research programs, and devotes little or no effort to either program development or the professional development of faculty.
      • The dean does not effectively advocate for college programs within the university.
      • The dean often does not insure viability of programs due to poor resource allocation deci-
        sions.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 8 ...................................... 1

        Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. 21
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 8: Program Development
page23image1160
Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 8 (verbatim)
  1. 8.1  The dean is not an academic leader. She has a weak scholarly record herself, and thus, does not seem to know how to lead in teaching, research or grants because she has not written grants, conducted scholarly research, or published in high quality journals. She is not a leader in teacher education and therefore does not have a vision for the college. She has not demonstrated the ability to select and promote leadership in the college that would fill the gaps in her own abilities. Rather, she surrounds herself with people who agree with her, protect her, or do her job for her. There has been no financial support by the dean for any faculty initiatives. The dean fails to raise the relevance, image, viability, and vibrance of academic and research programs. For example, she once took 3 hours to make a decision on whether to support a faculty member who was willing to write to try to get money to recruit new students to the college. The dean fails to fully support any viable idea. For example, we have TeachLive but there is no money to use it in programs.
  2. 8.2  The dean has been effectively promoting several programs. Without clear vision, mission, and identity as a college, it is hard to discern a plan or pattern.
  3. 8.3  I am not aware of the work of the dean in this area.
  4. 8.4  the challenge of decreasing enrollment overshadow some of this
  5. 8.5  Dean seems more interested in the opinion of the Provost’s office (especially Scarborough) than the faculty in terms of program growth, faculty development, and faculty workload.
  6. 8.6  Dean has only talks of financial stress and need as if there is no financial stability. Has never asked me about my research.
  7. 8.7  Dean Poplin Gosetti needs a better understanding of academic and research programs in our field in order to provide input or support. She does not provide professional development. She definitely needs coaching to improve management skills and understanding of programs.
  8. 8.8  It is my perception that the associate dean is doing a lot of work to help the dean understand programs. There appears to be not support or recognition of research work that faculty are doing. At times I don’t think the dean can really comprehend what some of use actually do as she has not worked in K-12 schools. She does not connect with faculty. I don’t think that the dean is lacking interest, but ability is not clear. There has been not discussion about professional development of faculty. I do not feel like the dean has made a good case for the work that we do in the college and how our college is greatly driven by accreditation. Also, our college does not simply deliver courses. We have students in schools that need supervision. We have to support and assess students with complex assessment. In our college there is inconsistent workload. Many of us have a 9-credit or 3 course load while another department may not. Within a department some may have 9-credit loads and others may have 12. There is inconsistency. She has not demonstrated that she really has an understanding of the work that faculty to and the different types of work that faculty do. I also don’t think the provost office has positioned our college with a person who could understand this since the appointment of Dean Switzer. Dean Brady, Dean Schmoll, and Dean Poplin-Gosetti do not have true education backgrounds. They really don’t understand the professional work of faculty. Dean Polpin-Gosetti was also not well placed when appointed by the provost and that has added to her difficulties and efforts to be successful.
  9. 8.9  I think my previous answer spoke to this lack of leadership and ability to move academic programs forward. Enrollment has continually decreased during this dean’s administration and she has yet to put forth any program or show any interest in increasing enrollment or move the college forward in any innovative manner to sustain programs. We are a college that is going down the drain and even though faculty have tried to institute some innovations, there
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 22 of 29
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 8: Program Development
page24image1160
is so little support that most faculty are discouraged. This college is NOT vibrant, relevant, or motivated under the leadership of this dean.
  1. 8.10  I’m not even sure that the Dean has any clear sense of what the programs in the college are, and what the faculty in those programs do.
  2. 8.11  The Dean’s actions or lack there of are degrading undergraduate and graduate education in the College.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 23 of 29
Area 9 Dean Poplin Gosetti Problem Solving and Decision-Making
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent of the deans effectiveness in problem solving and decision-making, and her/his ability to anticipate problems.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 9.......................................... 1.38
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean anticipates problems and consults others so that problems are turned into oppor- tunities.
  • Faculty and staff recognize that the dean’s decisions are prudent, judicious, and in the best interest of students and faculty. The dean can be depended on to make decisions for self and others that create opportunities throughout the college.
    Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 1
    • When appropriate, the dean consistently consults others with relevant expertise to solve
      problems expediently.
    • The dean can be relied upon to use all available resources during the problem solving and decision-making process. Faculty and chairs look to the dean for guidance on resolving problems, conflicts, etc.
      Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 1
      • The dean effectively solves most problems within an expected time frame.
      • The dean usually makes decisions carefully and using an appropriate and ethical problem solving process. Consults others prior to making a decision and demonstrates good judge- ment when a decision is made.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 4
        • The dean settles often for the first suggested solution, rather than exploring all possibilities.
        • The dean may demonstrate some understanding of the problem solving process, but does not consistently employ it. May seek advice from others prior to making a decision, but does so inconsistently. The dean needs coaching on making judicious decisions.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 18
      • The dean is unable to find solutions to basic problems. Does not seek advice from others to
        find solutions to such problems.
      • The dean does not demonstrate an understanding of the decision-making and problem solving process at the college, department, or program level. Decisions appear to be imprudent and without proper assessment of the situation, circumstance, or opportunity.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 9 ...................................... 2 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 9 (verbatim)
        9.1 Jeopardizes future and reputation of college by failing to make important decisions in timely manner.
        9.2 In my opinion this is the Dean’s core weakness: she does not make timely decisions leading to distrust and the generation of additional problems.
24
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 9: Problem Solving and Decision-Making
page26image1240
  1. 9.3  Penny Poplin Gosetti is totally incapable of making a decision in a timely manner. This has been the most frustrating aspect of dealing with her. She micromanages everything with a focus on “how things look”. For example, rather than focusing on big issues such as recruitment enrollment, recruitment, program enhancement, or fundraising, she spends her days editing faculty writing in memos, on grant proposals, in ads, and other media. I have never had a dean read and edit a grant proposal; let alone one who has never herself had a grant. Deans focus on the budget and sign off in a timely manner so the college can move ahead. Penny, instead, edits writing and adds rows and columns in a budget, which are the responsibility of others. She fails to delegate to others. For example, she duplicates work of the business manager, faculty, or research office by going over things line by line. Instead of making a decision and delegating to someone to follow through, she tries to follow through herself. It is impossible to lead and see a big vision, if you are spending your days micromanaging others.
  2. 9.4  Reactive rather than active in this area. Again, seems to shy away from really tackling this.
  3. 9.5  I believe the dean tries to turn problems into opportunities however, I think there is a lack of support for most of what goes on in the college. There seems to be a group of faculty that actively work to block anything the dean suggests. This group complains and does not attend most meetings. Another group never shows up for anything. They are not blockers just non participants A few are supportive of ideas or at least willing to give an idea a chance. You often see these people at college functions and they volunteer to help. There are also those that move on the fringe - attend meetings, sometimes participate. The dean has not been able to bring the faculty together.
  4. 9.6  i believe coming to a “final” solution is difficult for the Dean
  5. 9.7  Decisions are simply not made in a timely fashion or at all. We will probably lose one of our most prolific grant getters because the Dean can’t make a decision on whether to hire her back after retirement. Instead, she suggested having her move to Engineering! The loss of overhead dollars and salary line to another college is an incredibly bad decision.
  6. 9.8  Dean Poplin Gosetti struggles greatly to make decisions. In many cases, the time for the decision passes before she makes up her mind. She may consult with many people but still cannot make a decision. Decision making may be one of her greatest challenges.
  7. 9.9  The dean does not solve problems within an expect time frame. The dean has struggled to appoint interim chairs in a timely way. She did not notice that a faculty member was without workload as a result of not placing chairs in a timely way. She struggles to keep her view spread across the many many issues that she needs to manage at once. Multitasking can be challenging but it is necessary when serving as a dean.
  8. 9.10  If you listen to any faculty complaints, you will find the same words used over and over...she cannot make a decision. That is her biggest weakness in all aspects of running a college. She cannot make simple decisions in a timely manner so she spends all her time working on the minutia leaving her with no time to look ahead at larger goals. Faculty are busy and need a leader who will take care of the larger goals and vision of a college and this dean has utterly failed in this aspect of her job.
  9. 9.11  The Dean appears to have a very difficult time making decisions in a timely manner. One department within the college was without a chair for the first six weeks of a semester even though the Dean knew the previous semester that the piston would need to be filled.
  10. 9.12  Dean operates out of fear for her position.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 25 of 29
Area 10 Dean Poplin Gosetti Planning & Organizing
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which tasks, activities, outcomes and time must be prioritized, sequenced and scheduled.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 10......................................... 1.74
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0 The dean balances multiple projects effectively.
The dean is recognized as an expert planner.
Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
  • The dean develops reasonable plans for multiple projects and effectively organizes time to
    complete them.
  • The dean works effectively with faculty, chairs, and staff to identify goals and to establish activity assignments, timeline, and intermediary assessment points for each task.
    Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 4
    • The dean effectively manages time and all elements of one project by providing project plans
      and status.
    • The dean effectively communicates the issues to be addressed, and sets reasonable goals, activities, and timeline for each task.
      Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 9
      • The dean attempts to plan and execute daily tasks, but struggles with setting and commu-
        nicating priorities. Requires intervention from others to redirect work to higher priorities.
      • The dean shows little or no ability to bring together a team to address a pressing issue.
        Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 10
    • The dean shows no ability to plan and execute daily tasks. Takes no initiative but waits to
      be assigned tasks from higher administrators (e.g., Provost).
    • The dean does not attempt to bring together a team to address a pressing issue.
      Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 10..................................... 3 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
      Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 10 (verbatim)
10.1 The dean has shown no ability to lead. Rather, she blames everything on the budget, the Provost, or others. Examples: Why doesn’t the college have a recruiter? We have no money. The provost won’t give it to us. Why don’t we have a graduate dean? The Provost won’t let us. Why don’t we have more graduate assistantships? The grad school won’t give them to us. Why don’t we recruit students to the college? We don’t have any money. Why don’t we fix the inaccuracies on the College web page? IT won’t let us change things. Why can’t we hire a literacy faculty member? We don’t have approval from the Provost. Why can’t we get a department chair ad out during the normal higher ed hiring cycle? ? It isn’t approved yet. The dean seems incapable of planning. She does not or cannot make timely decisions. There isn’t a single thing in our strategic plan that has been started or implemented. Day to day decisions take her months and months to make. There is a bunker mentality in the college. There is little to no collaboration with the K-12 schools from the dean’s level in strategic planning, accreditation, or program improvements. When asked why we don’t have K-12 people on our committees, accreditation teams, or program designs, the answer is always “we don’t have time for that.”
26
Evaluation of Dean Poplin Gosetti Area 10: Planning & Organizing
page28image1200
  1. 10.2  It is difficult to discern any over all work plan. The dean seems to meet regularly with college council and chairs, but what happens in those meetings or directions they suggest is not clear.
  2. 10.3  The dean effectively communicates the issues to be addressed, and sets reasonable goals, activities, and timeline for each task. Often there is a lack of support and/or resources and the goal is not met in a timely fashion.
  3. 10.4  Dean does not see faculty as part of a team. Only appears to listen to one chair. Seems to be totally dependent on the Provost’s office for direction. Has shown no initiative in 18 months.
  4. 10.5  Dean Poplin Gosetti works sequentially, one at a time. She has difficulty working on a new task before a previous task is completed. She may assemble a team but does little to guide or direct their efforts She also tends to underestimate the effort required by others to complete tasks. She does not seem to understand how much work others are doing and, thus, over- assigns work to some people and under-assigns work to others. This is inequitable and puts stress on the hardest working people.
  5. 10.6  There is clear intervention of others to either prompt the dean to get things done in a timely way. The dean has struggled to bring faculty and staff together to work on important issues. There is little initiative–it seems like the dean primarily reacts to the tasks she is assigned or needs to manage. She is slow in completing tasks.
  6. 10.7  I have addressed this in most of my previous comments. I don’t know if the dean has a problem prioritizing, seeing or setting goals, or executing daily tasks. In all of these she seems ineffective. The college established strategic goals, which we have done with each new dean, yet no one, not even this dean has established any mechanisms to accomplish any of the goals. New strategic plans seems to be a act of futility in our college.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 27 of 29
Area 11 Dean Poplin Gosetti Financial Management
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the extent to which the dean is able to prepare and manage budgets, and be financially accountable to students, faculty, chairs, and the central administration.
Dean Poplin Gosetti’s score in Area 11......................................... 2.12
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 0
The dean clearly stands out as a leader in financial management and financial accountabil- ity. The dean supports and advises chairs on development of departmental budgets and consistently secures resources necessary to meet those budgets.
Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 0
The dean demonstrates financial accountability. Effectively communicates how fiscal realities will impact department and program needs. Makes financial decisions in consultation with chairs, program directors, and faculty.
Meets Expectations ............................................ Number of responses: 9 The dean is adept at budget preparation and makes financial decisions in consultation with
chairs and program directors.
Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 1
The dean needs coaching to improve financial skills, but shows some ability in relating current fiscal conditions to department needs.
Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 7
The dean is able to prepare a budget but does not understand much information on the financial statements. Shows little or no ability in relating current fiscal conditions to depart- ment or program needs. The dean does not effectively consult with or inform chairs about budgetary issues. The dean will continue to be unsuccessful in this area unless coaching is provided.
Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 11..................................... 9 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Written Comments on Dean Poplin Gosetti’s Performance in Area 11 (verbatim)
  1. 11.1  The dean has show no ability as outlined in this category. I have personal experience where I had to teach her what categories on a grant budget meant.
  2. 11.2  Dean shows very little understanding about budgets or how to look at budgets in light of the big picture in the College. Seems to be more comfortable micromanaging budgets.
  3. 11.3  Dean Poplin Gosetti does manage the budget and consults with chairs. She leans toward saving as much as possible and might not see opportunities to leverage financial resources strategically.
  4. 11.4  The dean DOES NOT relate the current fiscal conditions to faculty or explain how they will impact departments or program needs.
  5. 11.5  Too late for coaching
28

Area 12 Dean Poplin Gosetti Comments on overall administrative performance
Faculty members were invited to provide comments on the overall administrative perforance of their dean. The following are the verbatim responses received from that invitation.
  1. 12.1  The Dean is personable and works hard. However, she needs to not micro-manage small issues and focus on strong leadership and decision making in order that the college can move forward. The college feels stalled out – obviously much of this is due to the changes in upper administration, but some of it is due to the difficulty the Dean has in making assertive and timely decisions.
  2. 12.2  Scott Scarborough personally told a colleague and me that he solved one problem getting Penny out of his area and created another when he put her in JHCOE. So, why did he make her permanent dean without a search or consultation of the faculty? Moving an unwanted administrator around to another unit does nothing to create a viable college or improve the reputation and image of The University of Toledo or the College of Education.
  3. 12.3  Penny is a nice person with good intentions. Penny does not have sufficient support from the faculty to be successful
  4. 12.4  I like working at UT but I have seen many chairs come and go in the college of education, who for one reason or another are not in tune with the needs of a college of education and teacher preparation. This is a pressing issue as across the nation there are initiatives to do away with teacher preparation programs and in this time, our college needs some vision and strategic action to prevent our demise. Other colleges across the nation that have instituted innovative programs are not facing this same danger. I am quite concerned at this point because our enrollment is dwindling astronomically each semester. It would appear that the dean has her head stuck in the sand about this and if we do not get a dean who can help morale, motivate faculty, support innovations, seek outside support, and in general, look at the bigger issues and work towards moving this college in another direction, we are doomed to disappear. Please listen to faculty who are closest to this issue.
  5. 12.5  The JHCOE is in serious need of leadership at both the department and college levels. Had the Dean acted thoughtfully, in a timely manner she could have addressed this issue at the department level. She did not. The college cannot afford to remain adrift as it has since this dean was appointed.
  6. 12.6  Put Leigh Chairelott in the job. He has a national reputation in teacher education and is well respected in the community as am educator who can get things done. Poplin Gosetti knows nothing about PK-12 education and views it and the JHCOE as a competitor to higher education for the shrinking pot of public education funds at UT and in Ohio. She should return to the higher education faculty in the College of Social Justice and Human Services where her loyalties and abilities are located.
29