Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Faculty Senate Evaluation of UT College of Nursing Dean Timothy Gasper

Again, apologies for any format changes that resulted by posting this document verbatim.

Love to all,
Bloggie


University of Toledo
Faculty Senate Report on the Administrative Performance of1
Number of respondents: 20 Number of eligible respondents: 51
1.00 = Unsuccessful
2.00 = Needs Improvement

39% response rate
Range of scores
Dean Timothy Gaspar
evaluated by the faculty of The College of Nursing
Spring 2015
��
page1image5528
3.00 = Meets Expectations 4.00 = Exceeds Expectations
5.00 = Role Model
Dean Gaspar’s overall performance score................................................... 2.49 Area Page
Administrative Areas Score
Number
  1. Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility 2.15 1
  2. Leadership 2.25 4
  3. Responsibility and Accountability 2.45 7
  4. Communication/Interpersonal Skills 2.10 10
  5. Diversity and Inclusion 2.58 13
  6. Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff 2.30 15
  7. External Relations 2.88 18
  8. Program Development 2.63 20
  9. Problem Solving and Decision-Making 2.37 22
  10. Planning & Organizing 2.61 24
  11. Financial Management 3.12 26
Comments on overall administrative performance
28
page1image14920
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 Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 1 ................................................. 2.15
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 1
  • 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: 3
    • 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: 1
      • 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 Gaspar Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
page3image1240
Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 7
  • 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 ...................................... 0
    Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 1 (verbatim)
  1. 1.1  The promotion process has not been transparent Never discusses the rationale for his decisions I do not trust him
  2. 1.2  Often issues are brought to faculty but then the decision made are not what was recommended by faculty. It almost feels like the issue is being brought to faculty just so the dean can say it was the faculty decisions, then when faculty doesn’t agree and the decision is made contrary to faculty recommendation it feels like a waste of our time. I am ok with some things being and administrative decision. But, just don’t bring it to us if we have no say in it.
  3. 1.3  I am very hesitant to share specific behaviors, activities and outcomes for the following reason. On the last Dean evaluation in 2013, I spent a tremendous amount of time carefully preparing my answers and adding very specific and constructive feedback regarding Dean Gaspar’s lead- ership behaviors, activities and outcomes. Following that evaluation the CON had a consultant team from the U of M, during which time I also offered very specific feedback with areas for improvement. During the past two years, absolutely nothing has changed nor has anything been done by upper administration regarding serious concerns many of us in the CON have regarding Dean Gaspar’s behavior and ability to lead this college effectively. I am not willing to continue to provide input with no administrative response. Nothing has changed and it is very apparent nothing will. As always, I appreciate you asking for faculty input, but it would be refreshing if you would follow through with action.
  4. 1.4  Inconsistent in sharing decision-making. This may be related to not being clear about which decisions faculty input is. Desired, recommended, necessary, and appreciated.
  5. 1.5  Only brings issues of little or no consequence to faculty; otherwise makes decisions and informs faculty. Publically inserts influence during Faculty Assembly meetings, until reminded that faculty want and need full discussion regarding OCN policies
  6. 1.6  A recent example how the Dean is less than responsible in shared governance, is his denial that the faculty being required to complete the FBI background check is related to loss of this “Protected Personal Identifiers”. As I was in the police station on main campus getting my finger printing done, the officer said, boy I would be pretty upset if someone lost my FBI background check. The last evaluation I would have given the Dean the benefit of doubt, but not today.
  7. 1.7  The deans transparency truly is a hallmark of exception with him.
  8. 1.8  Dean has improved on shared governance and academic integrity since Dr. Jacobs is no longer the President. My current perceptions are that in the future improved communication will occur.
  9. 1.9  He is a compulsive liar and a very sick human being. He makes it up as he goes along. The Dean now has to approve anything faculty “vote for”at the Faculty Assembly Meetings. This is in direct conflict with “shared governance,”and faculty bylaws, since Faculty Assembly
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 2 of 28
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
page4image1240
is not overseen by the Dean. He is not only demeaning, disrespectful and inconsiderate of faculty, but does nothing to help his faculty and College be successful. Use of the 10 + secretaries/Support staff in the college is one example. All for Administration and nothing for faculty. An Authoritarian tells faculty what they are going to do. He does not listen to faculty or seek input from faculty. The Dean routinely has Committee minutes “changed”after the fact and always in his favor.
  1. 1.10  A general statement is important to me. All comments are intended to be helpful. Unfor- tunately there is a risk to faculty when responding to these surveys. The Dean was openly angry to faculty after the last couple surveys. He reacted to comments of previous surveys very disrespectfully of faculty. The surveys were anonymous but he said “I know who you are”. He then treated people that he assumed wrote things he did not like in manner that was not as kind as how he treated people that he assumed wrote nice things. I am going to assume he will try and figure out the identity of faculty responding to this survey. I hope that he does not repeat the past behaviors. The Dean does not demonstrate consistently that he understands shared governance- both in and out of the College of Nursing. He has difficulty following the constitution and by-laws. He has his own interpretation that is different from the faculty. He will openly debate the meaning of something written in black and white. This is very frustrat- ing for faculty because it is hard to argue with the person who is the boss and makes decisions about promotion, tenure, and salary adjustments. This behavior needs to change so faculty will be more willing to speak up and participate. His leadership is weak because faculty do not want to participate when he operates by his own set of assumptions.
  2. 1.11  Most recent example of loss of confidential records including health records is disgraceful. He was hiding the fact that they have been lost; we still have not been given official, written notification that our personal and confidential information is lost. He admits it in a faculty meeting but shows no accountability. We have never had access to the college budget and have never been part of a budget discussion to include our input in how our college uses its resources. He has no respect for academic freedom or for faculty. He dominates faculty meetings so much that faculty now do not attend regularly because we know we have no voice. Recent example of developing our college goals, we asked for data to determine if we had met last years goals and we never received information. We keep making goals but never evaluate whether they have been met or not.
  3. 1.12  I have felt fully supported as a faculty member by the dean. I have been respected, heard, and have always felt that I could knock on his door anytime. I believe that he has a vision for the college, but feel that it is not always fully explained or revealed to all faculty members.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 3 of 28
Area 2 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 2................................................. 2.25
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 1
  • 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: 2
    • 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: 3 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: 5
      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 Gaspar’s Performance in Area 2 (verbatim)
  1. 2.1  I never look to the dean for inspiration or for expertise I believe the dean has had coaching and it hasn’t worked
  2. 2.2  The dean does effectively represents and advocates for the mission and visibility of the college within the university and the professional community. He consistently publically recognizes students at faculty assembly, alumni events, Ohio Deans council and other university university functions.
4
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 2: Leadership
page6image1080
  1. 2.3  Dr. Gaspar wants to be a leader, however he is much more of a task manager than a leader. He has not gained the respect of the faculty, which seriously hampers his ability to lead the CON in a positive direction. I used to believe that with coaching, he would be able to grow in the position, however he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he does not believe that he needs any help or that he does anything that is not effective. Until he is able to admit that he does need help with his behaviors and leadership, he will not be able to grow as a leader. Certainly not at UT or anywhere else unfortunately. His behaviors will follow him where ever he goes.
  2. 2.4  No personal incidents but have witnessed conversations related to decreased interest in promot- ing some faculty. Many faculty members verbalized feelings of de- motivation. Some comments can be taken the wrong way.
  3. 2.5  I am impressed that Dean Gaspar publicly acknowledges the work of others. This helps set the tone of an more positive environment.
  4. 2.6  The dean publically acknowledges in public and in college meetings those faculty who patronize his favor. Funding for travel is biased. Certain faculty were provided equity raises unrelated to rank and role during contract negotiations; this is illegal. The dean discusses faculty members in public without their consent or knowledge. This is an ongoing concern.
  5. 2.7  Again, the Dean has not been a role model of leadership. The faculty salaries in the College of Nursing are below the 50th percentile of American Association of College of Nursing Salaries of Instructional and Administrative Nursing Faculty in Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Nursing. The Dean has given equity increases to a few faculty as noted in the University of Toledo Board of Trustee Personnel Action Report in 2012. To a number of others who have met with the Dean for equity increases after receiving PhDs, received promotions and tenure know we got $3100.00 compared to those who received close to $16,000.00 for equity. A very big difference. The Dean recognizes the accomplishments of some, but not others. For example when the baccalaureate program was struggling with NCLEX scores and turned this around he provided high praise. When the Advanced Practice Program received some of the highest certification scores in the nation, he did not broadcast anything. He also praises one Department Chairperson in Acute and Long Term Care, offers a little praise to the Department Chair in Health Promotion/Systems/Policy, and rarely acknowledges the Department Chair in Population and Community Care. His resource allocation is based on bias. Those who go out of their way to act solicitous to the Dean are rewarded with easy promotion, equity increases, conference support, and merit pay (which I just learned was given to the college). In fact I would actually say that the Dean almost targets those of us who speak up when something has been stated by the Dean that is incorrect. Even when we do this respectfully behind closed doors. The Dean has a list of us he has actually called the “4th floor Mafia”. I have been told that he used this label when referring to faculty in the college of nursing to top leadership who are no longer at UT or in their previous position at UT. I believe that decisions the Dean has made about salary equity have caused me to loose literally thousands of dollars each year that could have been used for my retirement.
  6. 2.8  With limited resources, the dean has attempted to build our college’s research programs. He has provided opportunities for faculty to strengthen and improve the programs we offer to students. He has improved in publicly recognizing the contributions of the faculty for their successes. He is very effective in advocating for the mission and visibility of the college both within the university and within our accrediting agencies.
  7. 2.9  Seriously? What leadership? The Dean is not interested in providing leadership, but more importantly and more shocking, he is not capable of providing leadership at the level of a Dean. Lowest-functioning Dean on the planet- just our humble opinion. Is that the level of Dean UT wants? Just asking! Instructors voting to decrease GPA in Doctoral programs- helps
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 5 of 28
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 2: Leadership
page7image1080
them get into the same programs in their own College, for FREE, of course. NO OTHER UNIVERSITIES ALLOW THIS LOW-LEVEL NONSENSE
  1. 2.10  A general statement is important to me. All comments are intended to be helpful. Unfor- tunately there is a risk to faculty when responding to these surveys. The Dean was openly angry to faculty after the last couple surveys. He reacted to comments of previous surveys very disrespectfully of faculty. The surveys were anonymous but he said “I know who you are”. He then treated people that he assumed wrote things he did not like in manner that was not as kind as how he treated people that he assumed wrote nice things. I am going to assume he will try and figure out the identity of faculty responding to this survey. I hope that he does not repeat the past behaviors. The Dean does not demonstrate leadership skills that move the College forward. Deans should be able to attend conferences, engage with peers, and consume literature. The Dean should be able to periodically report to Faculty on some of the emerging trends in Nursing and Higher Education. The Dean should periodically engage the faculty in dialogue that explores ideas and emerging trends. These type of activities are what helps achieve mission and develops vision. Instead, this Dean does not even share what he experiences when he goes to conferences. He only forwards emails that most of us have already gotten. If a faculty hears or reads something about Nursing and asks for Dean input, his responses are limited and confusing. He mixes up facts. He seems very nervous when talking to faculty groups. I would be OK with a Dean that delegates some of these leadership expectations to others. But some of the members of his administrative leadership team are not knowledgable enough to lead either. When he has his administrative staff lead discussions on topics like Master Plan of Evaluation or CCNE accreditation reports, the experience is often disorganized. Regarding the example in the template above “b.the dean’s actions and resource allocations are demonstrably free of favoritism or bias,”. I think there is bias and real lack of transparency regarding allocation of workload time and financial resources. He publically tells faculty there are no resources for raises or equity adjustments. But when you read the person- nel action documents on the board of trustees web sites it seems several faculty have received adjustments or raises that are not equal to those that others receive. The Deans professional behavior is sometimes questionable and out of line with policies. He recently introduced a new employee by summarizing the person’s physical description and demographics. The person was not in room. He discusses decisions about promotions or academic issues pertaining to faculty or faculty that are students in our programs in a manner that is not in line with privacy. He does not name the names but because the cohorts are small it is easy to come close in guessing identities.
  2. 2.11  This is the third evaluation of our dean. He consistently receives poor evaluations from our faculty. We have even had an outside consultant weigh in about our college structure and ’climate’. He has consistently been identified as a poor leader and role model and yet admin- istration fails to respond. A recent sexual harassment complaint was filed against him by a faculty member (not the first time a faculty member has filed a sexual harassment complaint against his sexist and degrading comments toward women) and it has yet to be acted upon. The university condones his behavior and we continue to suffer for it. The reputation of our college in the community is in decline because of his poor leadership. He is not a good steward in building community relationships as evidenced by our financial gifts. I know many alumni who will not donate financially to our college while he is still dean.
  3. 2.12  I do not always agree with decisions that are made by the dean, but I feel he goes to adminis- trators,committee chairs, and other faculty often before making final decisions. There is often no time at the end of our monthly faculty meetings to discuss important future-oriented items, so I believe he should use other means to keep faculty informed.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 6 of 28
Area 3 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 3................................................. 2.45
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 2
    • 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: 5
      • 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: 5
        • 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: 6
      • 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 ...................................... 0 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 3 (verbatim)
  1. 3.1  The dean doesn’t listen to faculty when they try to help him The dean’s decision to start the DNP program was shortsighted Has a group of administrators around him who always agree with his policies–even if the policies hurt the College of Nursing
  2. 3.2  The dean does follow through and is conscientious of time constraints for projects which isn’t always easy when also trying to involve faculty in the process. He is a visionary and does try to move the college forward. I believe he does accept responsibility and accountability for unsat- isfactory performance and looks for ways to correct. I believe he also holds other accountable appropriately which often leads to negative action from those people held accountable.
7
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
page9image1160
  1. 3.3  Dr. Gaspar does for the most part follow through with tasks; as I noted he is much better at task management than true leadership. I had to give him a needs improvement however for the fact that he does not always act in a professional manner and he also does not accept responsibility for anything negative that happens in the CON. It is always someone else’s fault.
  2. 3.4  I have never felt demeaned for bringing up ideas. He welcomes constructive criticism and feedback as well as encouragement.
  3. 3.5  Nothing is ever finalized until the deadline; this pattern is not conducive to good business practices that involve other parties. This is very frustrating and blame is directed toward others.
  4. 3.6  The Dean cannot be depended upon to follow through with assigned tasks because of quality or timeliness. Each year the College of Nursing must complete internal and external requirements for institutional alignment, accreditation, and enforcement. Almost seven years into his ad- ministration and basically there no central mechanisms in place to reference what work needs to be completed for the academic year. Does not display professional behavior consistently - When introducing the new Communications Recruitment Specialist for the College of Nursing at the Faculty Assembly, the Dean stated the persons name and described her as tall, thin, attractive, African American woman. He should know better. This is just one of the latest examples of where he does not have an clue about cultural awareness or offensive behavior. The dean denies responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or outcomes - AACN just reported record numbers for enrollment in college of nursing across the US. Our enrollment is flat or lower than previous years. This is an outcome form policy. The Dean blames faculty for the students poor NCLEX scores, but the Dean took no responsibility for his decision to limit admissions at a time when we clearly needed revenue.
  5. 3.7  The dean is a role model when it comes to accepting responsibility for his decisions, even if some of the faculty disagree with the decisions. He has always worked proactively to move the college forward.
  6. 3.8  Dean Tim blames the faculty & staff for everything that is wrong and takes credit for anything going in right direction, without EVER thanking his faculty for ANYTHING Dean makes faculty do much of his work. 2 Dean Gaspars again !!! What JOY !!! Mrs. Dean is back again !!!! Now a “VOLUNTEER” serving on Doctoral committees? And back in her old office after 4 weeks of “retiring!” “Volunteer” Mrs. Dean will get to travel, have an office, get all the perks as Dean’s “Volunteer” wife, how much money will she get paid for her“volunteer” position with her own office? No other “Volunteers” get their own offices, travel dollars, secretaries, $$$$$$, etc. etc. You really can’t make this stuff up about Tim and the Mrs. Faculty are closely monitored for paper and printer use- not Mrs. Dean- our new Volunteer. One thing you always know- Mrs. Dean, gone 4 weeks and then back as “Volunteer” with her own office, - it somehow benefits them both FINANCIALLY !!!!!!!!! When Mrs. Dean was 20% in College of Nursing, she traveled the world! She would frequently say OUT LOUD- “I can’t decide what conferences to attend. There are so many I want to attend, but they are happening at the same time.” Such a perk to have the husband award college travel dollars to his wife! When he said there was no money for other faculty in CON. Mrs. Dean would leave her signed (by her Dean husband) travel requests out in the workroom for everyone to see. Pretty good perk for a 20% position in the college. What a JOKE!!! Mrs. Dean called top administration all over university, whining it was “unfair” for faculty to evaluate her husband because they were too mean! Are you kidding me? NO research money coming into this college in years. Dean not interested. Period. He has allowed a small group of faculty to “pretend” to do research for years. Never any funding coming in from their reduced workloads.
  7. 3.9  Sorry to say but this is not a good area for the Dean. There is no doubt that this Dean can not work with all faculty. I would suggest someone outside the college check in with the staff.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 8 of 28
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
page10image1160
Every once in awhile he publically attributes errors to staff when it is none of our business to hear it. Unfortunately there is a risk to faculty when responding to these surveys. The Dean was openly angry to faculty after the last couple surveys. He reacted to comments of previous surveys very disrespectfully of faculty. The surveys were anonymous but he said “I know who you are”. He then treated people that he assumed wrote things he did not like in manner that was not as kind as how he treated people that he assumed wrote nice things. Basically, the Dean has never once “owned” or admitted the possibility that maybe part of the problem is he made mistakes of judgment or implementation. He has never apologized to faculty for past inappropriate behaviors. It is always the fault of someone else. It is always the other person who is wrong in their interpretation or implementation.
  1. 3.10  I can’t even begin to discuss his failure to be accountable. HE IS A BULLY! He has been successful of late in getting his academic leadership team to do his work - writing accreditation reports, etc. The most telling action by the faculty that this dean is a bad manager is that we voted 24-10 to join the AAUP! It was the only way we knew our voices would be heard and he has done all that he could to derail that effort!
  2. 3.11  There have been some faculty initiated issues that were brought to the dean’s attention that did not get a direct response from him. He often discussed these kinds of issues with the department chair or academic dean, but direct communication with the faculty involved is not always done. This kind of follow through would go a long way to build stronger relationships with faculty members.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 9 of 28
Area 4 Dean Gaspar
Communication/Interpersonal Skills
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
  1. (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.
  2. (b)  The extent to which the dean uses appropriate media to convey particular messages or infor-
    mation.
Dean Gaspar’s score in Area 4................................................. 2.10
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 1
Takes on responsibility to initiate communication with faculty, chairs, staff, or students. Works consistently to develop team effectiveness.
Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 1
  • 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: 4
    • 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: 7
      • 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: 7
    • 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 ...................................... 0
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 4 (verbatim)
  1. 4.1  The dean does not listen The dean is unable to resolve conflicts with faculty and staff because he doesn’t listen
  2. 4.2  I think the dean has improved greatly in this area. I think he is able to present information clearly and has learned how to respond to complaints and others behavior better. However, I do not always trust what the dean is saying as being accurate.
  3. 4.3  I provided many examples of this lack of relationship building skills in the last evaluation. Go back and review those; they remain the same.
10
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
page12image1120
  1. 4.4  I believe that Dean Gaspar is meeting the expectations for communication; however, this is an area that I believe he should champion for improvement (both personally and in his administrative staff).
  2. 4.5  Needs to stop forwarding email that faculty already receive from other entities at UT. Continues to use derogatory language in public meetings; recently introduced a new employee as “young, tall and good looking” and said another person’s husband “making a good choice for wife” Makes unsupported statements when trying to sway opinion or voting.
  3. 4.6  The Dean shows limited effort to communicate and to respond to complaints, but does so inconsistently - The lost FBI records are the latest issue. These records are maintained by the Dean. Once he reorganized the records were lost. He stated in a Cabinet Meeting (The Administrative Leadership team and Chairpersons of all Governance Committees) that he had no information to share, did not know who we could speak with about this lost information. My concern is did he lose our Personal Health Information along with our Protected Personal Information from our FBI background Checks. Information stated is not understood by others and is often incorrect. The information provided by the Dean is often incorrect. It is difficult to not correct him in public when the entire faculty is getting miss information. The dean often requires assistance to resolve interpersonal conflicts. I would say that our Dean has a group that he has targeted that have had to file harassment complaints, grievances, and reach out to Kevin West to resolve. I also believe that Kevin West was assigned to work with our Dean on his communications and personal relations. I personally am tired of complaining because nothing is ever done. I also know that a leadership coach had to hired to work with the Dean extensively, but that same coach never met with faculty to determine what the issues were. The dean shows limited effort working with faculty, chairs, or staff, but does so inconsistently - The Dean works on a very limited basis with faculty on any initiatives. In fact in the almost seven years he has been in the college and I have served on a number of committees has he ever offered to do any work with any committee I have served on. He directs or has the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs direct the Chairpersons to complete the work for the State Board of Nursing site visits and accreditation visits. I know that at several recruiting events prospective students complained that the Dean did not know what program he was addressing. One group of Clinical Nurse Leader (CNL) students stated he was talking not about the CNL Program, but the Doctor of Nursing Practice Program. The were offended and put off by this.
  4. 4.7  He makes himself available and flexible to the faculty
  5. 4.8  This is an area in which the dean has improved since coming to the University. He consistently demonstrates teamwork capabilities.
  6. 4.9  The Dean is the root of most of the interpersonal conflicts that arise in the College.
  7. 4.10  After his last evaluation Dean Tim said “you people are EVIL and I KNOW who you are, and I will PRAY for you.” Just what you want to hear from your Dean right? Invokes great confidence in his “Dean ‘leadership’ abilities”! Dean Tim had to have intense, mandated “Training,” to learn how to “Manage his Anger,’ calm his violence, not put his finger in faculty/staff faces, not scream and turn red, not shake when he holds any paper or gets a question he doesn’t like, etc., etc., etc. Well guess what? His Anger Management Training is not working !!!!!!! He is so incredibly low level, it is difficult to work with him on any level. He repeatedly introduces new young women employees by physical characteristics. He just introduced a new female support staff as “She is an attractive, thin, African American woman.” He is clueless how unacceptable his behavior is. Really clueless.
  8. 4.11  He tries.... I truly believe he is approachable and available. The issue is not that he does not try, it is the message is not clear. He seems to get nervous in public. He has made a few errors in information. He mixed up the dates for program accreditation mid cycle reports. The dates
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 11 of 28
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
page13image1120
were corrected a couple months later. He implied it was an error on the part of the accreditor. I can not speak to interpersonal conflicts. No first hand experience.
  1. 4.12  His communication skills are awful. A friend of mine came to an orientation for potential undergraduate students with her son - she is the dean of business at a nearby community college. She said he spoke so terribly and gave such a poor presentation that she said it was the number one reason her son did not accept admission to our college. He is a micromanager and not a visionary. He is more concerned about faculty submitting mileage for work-related travel than he is for cultivating relationships with potential donors or our community partners.
  2. 4.13  This may be the weakest link at the college. Issues are brought to committees, then taken to the leadership team for discussion. Issues may be discussed in the Deans Cabinet- where the leadership team and governance committee chairs meet monthly. However, explanations and further discussion often never makes it back to general faculty. Monthly meetings have VERY FULL agendas, and this may be part of the problem. The dean has had informal meetings periodically with faculty and staff and I feel they were a great way to keep communication open. I certainly understand the some information in the deans prevue should not always be shared with faculty until details (including budget) are clearly finalized, but there have been several examples of less that clear communication that led to significant confusion and consternation.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 12 of 28
Area 5 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 5................................................. 2.58
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 2 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: 5
    • 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: 6
      • 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: 4
    • 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 ...................................... 1
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
13
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 5: Diversity and Inclusion
page15image1160
Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 5 (verbatim)
  1. 5.1  The dean does make an effort to have a diverse faculty and is supportive of diversity in our college.
  2. 5.2  As noted in the last evaluation, Dr. Gaspar frequently violates harassment and workplace discrimination policies, not only those at UT but those that are federal law. This behavior would not be tolerated in any other professional institution but for some reason it is allowed to continue in the College of Nursing. I think that unfortunately many of us have just come to expect it, we’ve become numb to it, and for the most part many of us have just checked out emotionally so as not to be damaged further by the bullying behaviors. I know I sound very negative and I’m usually an extremely positive person, but after years of oppressiveness, I’ve pretty much just given up.
  3. 5.3  Looks women up and down; seen by many faculty and it is uncomfortable Does not speak up when meeting discourse includes biased statements or degrades a population or person.
  4. 5.4  The Dean has limited skills and experience in this realm. I do not think he is aware of his biases. Examples provided previously are sufficient. I know that he offended me personally by referring to other faculty who have worked over their contracted hours, but has given me no recognition of taking on almost a double workload in the college for seven years without overage pay. This is hurtful, demeaning, and as I have stated, has caused damage to me financially. I believe he knows the benefits of diversity, but choses to do otherwise.
  5. 5.5  The dean does not have a clear grasp of the appropriateness of communication with others who are different from self. This statement is most accurate regarding this Dean. This Dean has little to no regard for differing opinions from his own.
  6. 5.6  The Dean refers to 2 of our faculty as the “White” (first name of faculty) and the “Black” (first name of faculty). (Both women have the same name). Can you imagine the level of a Dean who would think something like that, let alone, say it out loud while laughing? Dean is “inclusive” with other faculty who drink and gossip and back stab other faculty. He and his “team” will sit for hours laughing and gossiping about faculty. Dean Tim said he desperately needed faculty and “I was allowed to hire in Nursing when no other Deans got to hire faculty.” Hired about 15 new grads in last 2 years. Then he makes them get into the failing doctoral program so he can tell top Administration his programs are growing! Our faculty are FREE of course, and then doubles the number of administrators! No kidding- look into it. Just doubled the number of administrators, so I guess that’s what he does with his “desperate need to hire new faculty.” Formed a NEW $100,000 position for DNP Cheryl Geiss. Her responsibilities were all met by other administrators, but you know when Cheryl wants something, Cheryl gets it. She really only wants the DNP students though. Too much work to do all of those MSN students and deal with those “horrible” faculty.
  7. 5.7  The Dean supports the College of Nursing Diversity Plan. My issue is that he does not always consider diverse opinions. He operates in a way that he wants to make the decisions. It is really difficult for him to listen to what people say. I will repeat something in this box that was placed in Area 2. The Deans professional behavior is sometimes questionable and out of line with policies. He recently introduced a new employee by summarizing the person’s physical description and demographics. The person was not in room. It was a very uncomfortable experience.
  8. 5.8  Education opportunities are always forwarded to faculty as they are made available by UT and other organizations. Many faculty receive financial support to attend conferences and seminars to further develop expertise. There never seems to be enough money for these kinds of events, but I believe the allocation of these available funds has been fair to all faculty.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 14 of 28
Area 6 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 6................................................. 2.30
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 2
    • 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: 7
      • 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 ...................................... 0 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
15
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
page17image1320
Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 6 (verbatim)
  1. 6.1  The dean doesn’t listen I believe that the dean makes “deals” with certain faculty to lighten their workload The dean has put an emphasis on hiring nurse practitioners with little or no academic background
  2. 6.2  Internal positions are presented to faculty for application and input from faculty is sought- though I am not sure it is taken into consideration. There is little focus on retention and professional development. A few faculty do have research time, but their is no mentoring for new faculty do explore research and scholarship and in all honesty everyone is just so busy teaching all their classes there is no time to develop professionally, even if there was support available. I think this is a huge weakness in our college.
  3. 6.3  Dr. Gaspar does a good job in recruiting new faculty and sustaining and creating faculty lines for the CON. However, he does not do a good job in retaining faculty. I expect many to leave this year, choosing retirement earlier than they would normally have due to the negative work environment at the College of Nursing.
  4. 6.4  The dean openly is expressing his desire for recruiting and retaining a diverse and strong student population.
  5. 6.5  Cannot manage nor assist others to manage or mediate conflict. Actually says things to escalate the issues. Is not equally supportive of all faculty, very biased in who he supports.
  6. 6.6  The college needs to improve its’ visibility and reputation in order to attract faculty with established or growing research interests. The college faculty is inbred and little mentoring or research support occurs.
  7. 6.7  The Dean hired seven new faculty a year ago, but could only recruit one individual with a terminal degree. He lost a young, motivated faculty member with a terminal degree because she was poorly treated and given an inappropriate teaching and workload for her degree/specialty and development, without the support of a veteran faculty member. He does recruit and has asked us to recruit, but due to the lack of advocacy for the need to maintain faculty salaries at the 50th percentile of our benchmark we are unable to be competitive except for Master Degree Prepared faculty. If he does put together a competitive salary, than there will be no money for equity for veteran faculty and the disparity between new and recently hired faculty is excessive. The Dean is very timely in replacing positions for which he has favorites available or selected. We have an Associate Dean of Research and Evaluation that has been vacant for almost two years. We desperately need this position.
  8. 6.8  The dean is very active in recruitment of faculty and staff. He always promotes the college to other professionals. The dean encourages faculty to self-identify as candidates for future college administrative positions.
  9. 6.9  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. These two statments are accurate for this Dean. Again, he is usually the source of creating the conflict. A positive occurence was the resignation of the Academic Associate Dean who was a master at creating conflict between faculty, faculty and administrative leadership members and leadership members. At least that influence is gone. The Dean primarly surrounds himself with “yes” people and does not choose to utilize nor recognize faculty and certain administrative leadership members who exhibit great potential and growth to move this college foward. Unfortunately this Dean allows his adminstrative assistant to function in a decision making role concerning faculty and student relations.
  10. 6.10  Dean Tim said he desperately needed faculty and “I was allowed to hire in Nursing when no other Deans got to hire faculty.” Hired about 15 new grads, from our programs, in last 2 years.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 16 of 28
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
page18image1320
Then he makes the MSNs get into the failing doctoral program so he can tell top Administration his programs are growing! Our faculty are FREE of course, and then doubles the number of administrators! No kidding- look into it. Has never had to report specific numbers for each program- reports graduate numbers together, so no one the wiser that there numbers are sooooooo low in so many of the programs. Just doubled the number of administrators, so I guess that’s what he does with his “desperate need to hire new faculty.” The Dean blocked, yes blocked faculty from getting raises when the rest of the University was getting a raise. It has been 6 years for most faculty to have received a raise. Many faculty are at or even below the 25th percentile. Usually the Dean advocates for their faculty financially. Not Dean Tim- he even tries to block it when it is offered to the whole university. Tim & the Mrs. get their raises- so what else matters? The only faculty he recruits now are his own graduates. In fact he was not allowing anyone but DNPs or MSNs from his own programs to apply for positions. All faculty are equal, regardless of rank. Everyone has same workload, regardless of rank. He is an embarrassment at regional conferences where he makes faculty attending the conference set up recruitment tables. He doesn’t want too many pens or anything free out on the table. Some of the local Deans buy pizza for Sigma and other meetings- No not our Dean Tim- too cheap.
  1. 6.11  The Dean sincerely tries. This is going to be awkward. Please- whoever reads this do not be offended. We have been unable to fill our vacant faculty positions with faculty that are terminally degreed. What this means is the faculty hired are hired in non-tenure track lines. Then they have to go to school to earn the terminal degree. When a college has several faculty working full time and going to school, it is difficult for them to fully immerse in their new faculty role. They can conduct substantial scholarship. Then the terminally degreed faculty have to fill in and carry a little more of the load in service and teaching (instead of release to do scholarship). The net result is slow movement toward the improvement of scholarship and lots of tired faculty. I do not know if he grooms faculty for chair or associate dean position.
  2. 6.12  Retention of faculty seems to be an area for improvement. I have witnessed recently hired faculty members receive workloads that are unrealistic for new faculty to UT. This is the responsibility of Department Chairs, but the dean certainly is aware of these assignments. Retaining qualified faculty members should be a priority, not just with salary, but with respect and collegiality. I certainly understand that the duties and responsibilities of the dean are tremendous, and there are only 24 hrs per day. But placing skilled people in department chair positions and associate dean positions might lift some of this burden.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 17 of 28
Area 7 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 7................................................. 2.88
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 3
    • 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: 6
      • 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: 1
        • 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: 4
      • 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 ...................................... 4 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
18
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 7: External Relations
page20image1120
Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 7 (verbatim)
  1. 7.1  The dean is proactive in developing relationships with constituents. He always presents the college, faculty and students in a very positive light and very good at funds and donor devel- opment.
  2. 7.2  As i noted during the last evaluation, Dr. Gaspars meets this area of expectations.
  3. 7.3  No evidence of external funding efforts evident. Spends time micro-managing work and opinions in the college rather than serving as a leader in external fundraising. No new scholarships, no new major grants, nothing.
  4. 7.4  The dean does understands the importance of external relationships, but has not had great success in raising money for programs, endowed chairperson, or research. He has obtained money from his own parents estate, from a wonderful faculty member who has passed on, and a few others. He has spent time on fundraising events that are not shared in the college. He has made it known that he wants any “leads” to be handled through his office and the Foundation. He does not treat current faculty and students as potential donors. The dean does not inform faculty of his fundraising efforts. I do not know of one initiative he has implemented for the CON since his arrival. The dean’s relationships with external stakeholders are weak and unproductive and will continue to be unsuccessful without coaching. I believe the Dean has a handful of stakeholders he works with to raise funds. I heard through the grapevine that a few weekends ago he had a fundraising event at his home with a few retired faculty from the CON. No announcement, no requests to work with him. It is all done in a very secretive manner. The dean will be out of the office and no announcement goes out to the faculty on where he is or what he is doing. Sometime the department chairs are also unaware.
  5. 7.5  I am aware that alumni have attempted to donate to certain initiatives but were told that he would decide where the money would be placed. I have heard that there are alumni that will not donate while he is in the position of Dean.
  6. 7.6  With the way he treats people, it would be shocking if he were to cultivate any donor develop- ment. He does go to Florida and California every winter for so called “fundraising” with Ann Baker (retired faculty) and some other “fun” drinkers/party goers, gossipers, etc.
  7. 7.7  I do not know specifics for this. I have not heard about much in the way of financial donations. I do not know how he interacts with people outside the University or College.
  8. 7.8  This is the deans strong suit. He seeks out funds, sponsorships, partnerships with a number of entities to further the mission of our college.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 19 of 28
Area 8 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 8................................................. 2.63
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 2
    • 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: 5
      • 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: 7
        • 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: 3
      • 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. 20
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 8: Program Development
page22image1120
Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 8 (verbatim)
  1. 8.1  The graduate programs in the College of Nursing are in chaos. There are very low numbers in some programs with too many faculty assigned.
  2. 8.2  The dean is very knowledgeable and insightful regarding program development. He does assign program responsibility to dept chairs and keeps on top of program management goals. Faculty development is lacking and the connection between faculty development being essential for program development, sustainability and grown has not been made or supported. There has been some selective focus on the development of a select group of academic and research programs but only limited interest in faculty development. From a financial perspective, I think the dean has done well in managing resources and growing programs.
  3. 8.3  Continues to support non-growing overfunded (heavy on faculty assigned hours and low on enrollment) programs. Unable to make decisions to merge programs when warranted to decrease burden and allow productive programs to flourish with adequate resources.
  4. 8.4  The dean does not invest time or budget in faculty research development or clinical scholarship. Faculty who develop a history of clinical scholarship are not rewarded.
  5. 8.5  The dean actively promotes development and sustainability of academic and research programs. He routinely provides resources for program needs and for professional development of faculty.
  6. 8.6  This Dean is unable to prioritize needs of this College. There was a great deal of money spent on a salary of someone who was according to him the guru of research and not one grant or dollar was brought in during her time of “mentoring” some faculty who received workload release to do so. She herself brought no research or grants either. There has been no real effort on his part to assure this void be corrected.
  7. 8.7  1 BSN to DNP student- oops spoke too fast- NO NEW BSN to DNP students student withdrew and went to a higher-level program. 1st cohort of BSN to DNP was a big fat “zero.” All 5 students withdrew from the program, it has so many issues. 4 MSN to DNP certificate students (3 of them our faculty) Secretaries aren’t allowed to leave their office without permission or close their doors. If a secretaries’ door is closed, it is “reported” to the Dean and he literally walks over and opens the door. Dean hires MSN new graduates and then forces them into DNP program so he can tell Administration his programs are growing! Our faculty are in our programs (FREE of course)- and then they graduate and teach in the program- all very SICK !!!!!!!! Students in these programs are appalled at how “low level” they are.
  8. 8.8  The Dean is trying but there are limited results. He has been unable to recruit an effective Associate Dean for Research. The person he hired was ineffective in helping faculty. She only helped a select few. The position has been vacant for a year or so. The resources to help faculty conduct preliminary research or scholarship is not sufficient. So, it is has been hard for faculty to compete for larger amounts of funding. The resources for professional development and travel are limited. It is not possible to fully fund large numbers of faculty to travel for professional development opportunities. Academic Program development is successful only because of the hard work of faculty. He does not routinely share information from his travels to conferences or peer meetings with the faculty.
  9. 8.9  We have had a Dean for Research position open for a year. Faculty know that they are expected to produce scholarly work as well as teach and maintain a practice. However, there is no practice plan in place for APN faculty to meet these expectations. This has been the topic of countless meetings with no resolution. Many APN faculty have practices above and beyond their teaching and scholarly responsibilities, which is a schedule almost impossible to maintain. Faculty (especially new faculty) must stumble around attempting to find a research project to assist with while they develop their own research interests. The Research Dean position must be filled!
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 21 of 28
Area 9 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 9................................................. 2.37
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2
  • 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: 4
      • 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: 7
        • 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: 5
      • 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 ...................................... 1 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 9 (verbatim)
  1. 9.1  The dean doesn’t listen The dean’s decisions are strongly influenced by associate deans and directors who have vested interests in the outcomes
  2. 9.2  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 prob- lems, conflicts, etc. The dean effectively solves most problems within an expected time frame. However, I do think sometimes there is a knee jerk reaction.
22
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 9: Problem Solving and Decision-Making
page24image1200
  1. 9.3  Again, I had to mark needs improvement, due to the fact that he does not consistently ask for advice in problem solving. I think most of us understand that he is responsible for decision making in the CON, however he does not do a good job in letting faculty and staff know what has been decided. More often than not, he makes decisions with little or no input and then delays for months or longer in letting the faculty know there was a change in personal, program management, or faculty positions.
  2. 9.4  Our faculty are very bright and dedicated. Instead of providing full opportunity for exploring options, issues and problems are brought forward too late or with biased slant. Tries to force Cabinet to vote on items that are full faculty domain. Uses certain committee chairpersons to push private agendas; this happens repeatedly and the chairpersons squirm alone during public discourse. Driven by enrollment numbers rather than student quality and preparation. Injects self into decisions that should be handled first at course and department level.
  3. 9.5  The dean often settles on his own decision instead of using a team approach. His approach often wastes time and resources and we then use a team approach. He does not know how to work well through others. His decisions are often imprudent and without proper assessment of the situation, circumstance, or opportunity. He eliminated both of the sitting Associate Deans once he was in place. These two individual knew undergraduate and graduate programs. He put people in their place who were ill prepared and who would agree with decisions that led to drop in enrollment, poor NCLEX results, low faculty salaries, no merit for faculty other than the few previously mentioned. He brought in ATI to help turn around the NCLEX scores. This tool once utilized by all faculty in a fairly consistent manner did help.
  4. 9.6  Actually this Dean expects others to make all of the decisions as he has an attitude of being responsible for nothing. There is no real planning on his part and most actions are knee-jerk.
  5. 9.7  Sadly, He is a compulsive liar and a very sick human being. He has no ability to problem solve. When faculty complained about his ???NEW??? organizational chart, no one knew who to go to for what, he doubled down and is planning to make it worse, now doubling the number of administrators. He is not capable of taking feedback and using it, because he respects NO ONE but himself.
  6. 9.8  I personally have not experiences a significant enough problem that my department chair and I could not solve. I am aware of several student related personal issues in which the dean demonstrated significant empathy and problem-solving abilities.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 23 of 28
Area 10 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 10................................................ 2.61
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 2 The dean balances multiple projects effectively.
The dean is recognized as an expert planner.
Exceeds Expectations .......................................... Number of responses: 1
  • 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: 6
    • 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: 6
      • 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: 3
    • 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..................................... 2 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
      Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 10 (verbatim)
  1. 10.1  The dean can effectively manage project plans,setting reasonable goals, activities and time- lines. His struggle comes with getting the faculty on board.
  2. 10.2  Makes everything a crisis, some of this behavior is due to poor management of external deadlines and some is due to over engagement with minor things that chairs and faculty can handle well.
  3. 10.3  Teams of faculty find their input to be secondary. The college is very hierarchical in decision making.
  4. 10.4  The dean does not demonstrate planning skills. I cannot remember a timeline for work to be approved other than that coming from a task force or governance committee who has done the work for the dean. His reorganization was the only time I can remember a timeline and that was brought forward by the Department Chairs and the consultant.
24
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 10: Planning & Organizing
page26image1160
  1. 10.5  This Dean does not plan. He exhibits very spur of the moment thinking and actions.
  2. 10.6  The faculty evaluation of Dean’s Organizational Structure (OS) identified numerous problems in Tim’s OS, yet he is now doubling down and doubling the number of administrators! No one knows who to go to for what. He needs a thick pad of administration to protect him from his failure as a Dean. He is totally incompetent! He brings together a team to do his work- let me rephrase that- he has faculty bring together a team when he needs his work done. For example in creating Goals of the College, it would seem the Dean and his team could present to faculty and get feedback, but they always get the faculty to do their work for them. then he gets to tell faculty they didn’t do it right.
  3. 10.7  UsuallytheevidenceofplanningandorganizingisfromtheotheradministratorsintheCollege. Faculty do take initiative for bringing up ideas and issues and acting in a shared governance manner if the issue is within faculty scope. As stated earlier, there is not a lot of visioning or strategizing going on unless there is an accreditation report to prepare.
  4. 10.8  The leadership team is a developing team with some recent changes. The dean is not a micro- manager and allow (and expects) his team to manage their assigned areas- program issues, course staffing, clinical issues. He often appoints faculty members to lead a task force to research and recommend changes or solve problems.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 25 of 28
Area 11 Dean Gaspar 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 Gaspar’s score in Area 11................................................ 3.12
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................... Number of responses: 5
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: 1
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: 5 The dean is adept at budget preparation and makes financial decisions in consultation with
chairs and program directors.
Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 3
The dean needs coaching to improve financial skills, but shows some ability in relating current fiscal conditions to department needs.
Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 3
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..................................... 3 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Written Comments on Dean Gaspar’s Performance in Area 11 (verbatim)
  1. 11.1  This is one of the deans biggest strength. Our college feels financially solid which allows faculty to focus on teaching and not always burden about financial woes.
  2. 11.2  Has improved in sharing details with faculty. Seeks chairs input but faculty do not know impact.
  3. 11.3  The dean does address program expansion, but fails to acknowledge and address the need for faculty to support student needs and program expansion.
  4. 11.4  He has not obtained the financial support to maintain salaries at the benchmark. Going soon to be seven years without an increase is unacceptable. If I find a job that allows me to remain in my current geographic location I would consider leaving. I met with the dean in the fall to discuss consideration of an equity increase and have not received anything in writing from the dean as of this survey date.
26
Evaluation of Dean Gaspar Area 11: Financial Management
page28image1120
  1. 11.5  The dean clearly stands out as a leader in financial management and financial accountability. The dean is very transparent in always reporting back to the faculty throughout the budget process.
  2. 11.6  This Dean is not transparent with the college budget. Although he may say he seeks input from faculty and other administrators we never see the documents.
  3. 11.7  We have 10 + Secretaries - They are told they “SHOULD NOT” help faculty. Ask them! Dean from University of Michigan, School of Nursing did. In fact, he took all the Secretaries up to 4th floor so they couldn???t help the faculty. Most DNP faculty REFUSE to teach in MSN program because student numbers are too high in the MSN program- and they get away with that nonsense- as new grads themselves, from the same programs they are now teaching in !!!!!!!!!! Now the new “Director” of the graduate programs does not want to deal with the large numbers of MSN students or faculty, so she is pushing to get rid of the MSN programs. She will whine to Dean Tim until she gets what she wants. Her laziness is well known. He gives inequitable raises for same promotion, depending on favoritism, period. Increasingly “Some” faculty are promoted to Associate Professor with “ZERO” publications! Unheard of in an Academic setting. Secretaries carry “his Majesty’s” coat when out in Public. Yes, that is how we use the secretaries that are told they “Should Not” help faculty. ASK THEM ! Few faculty have ever seen “Merit Pay.” I would imagine Mrs. Dean received several increases using merit pay.
  4. 11.8  The College of Nursing budget is not shared with Faculty. He provides a high level summary but no details. The summary is about the process, but not the numbers. Departments do not get their own budgets. I do not know if that is good or bad. Faculty are not asked for input in planning budgets. I do not know if Department chairs or associate Deans are asked. It is really difficult to know if he is successful with budget. We know what he tells us he asks for, but since no one other than him or his business manager are present with his bosses during discussion, his success or truthfulness can not be evaluated by faculty. Perhaps a little more transparency would reduce perceptions that there is a bias in resource allocation.
  5. 11.9  He has had coaching and continues to have no regard for the input of faculty as far as financial resources go. He pushes his agenda forward in admission meetings and intimidates the faculty into submission. He has rewarded all those who are aligned with his leadership team and clearly retaliated against those who have stood up for faculty rights and the integrity and quality of our programs. He gave large pay raises to those faculty who were willing to ‘spy’ on their colleagues and provide him with information. A faculty member openly stated in a faculty meeting she was asked by the dean to ‘report’ to him information about other faculty members in exchange for a lighter workload.
  6. 11.10  This is another strong suit for the dean. He fully understands the budget and where the money comes from and where it goes. Along with the business manager and the department chairs, fiscal issues are managed fairly and always with the best interest of the college in mind.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 27 of 28

Area 12 Dean Gaspar 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  I think the dean has had many challenges since he came to UT. He got off to a rocky start but has adapted well to the culture and really improved and grown in his role. While I do not always agree with the deans decisions or his actions, I do believe he is doing what he thinks is in the best of our college. Unfortunately, I think there is a core group of faculty who had a bad experience for whatever reason and are now very negative and often malicious. I actually dread when the dean survey comes around as it becomes a platform for some to maliciously attack the dean and as a result is an embarrassment to the rest of the faculty.
  2. 12.2  Coaching to date has not been effective, especially in working with professional women who are very self-directed and engaged in college efforts. Must stop opinionated or biased comments about people in public; it is embarrassing to hear a dean comment about a person being valued because of their attire or other attributes.
  3. 12.3  I must say that we have a volunteer faculty member who has a office, telephone service, email, and is listed on the directory in the college of nursing, while other full-time faculty in the college of Pharmacy are sharing office space. When information regarding evaluation of the deans was sent out to UT deans for comment. The wife of the dean in the CON contacted the Faculty Senate President and included the Provost and President on the email requesting that Faculty Senate assure that the evaluation be conducted in a professional manner. The information was only sent to the deans, not their partners/wives/husbands/or significant others. Her request was taken to and deliberated by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which noted that the dean sharing this information with his spouse was inappropriate at best and her contact the FSEC based on inappropriate sharing was unprofessional at best.
  4. 12.4  I appreciate his vision and work ethic towards the goals of the college of nursing.
  5. 12.5  The Dean is making an effort to improve those areas that faculty have identified in past evaluations as weaknesses. He is a very strong leader in budget and accreditation. However, when necessary, he makes administrative decisions that he feels are needed to promote the college and university, even if the decision is not in agreement with some individual faculty.
  6. 12.6  I am not certain how it is that an employee of the University of Toledo can continue em- ployment with such consistently poor evaluations. I sincerely hope the University of Toledo administration will take our concerns at the College of Nursing seriously.
  7. 12.7  Dean Tim Gaspar’s 6th Evaluation!!!!! No one can be reading these horrendous Dean Gaspar evaluations and he still has a job !!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does he get to run a college like this and get away with it??? Does anyone care????????
28