Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Slides From Committee on Strategic Organization

Just what we need, more deans and unqualified "leaders"...


















Sunday, June 27, 2010

Cloud of Concern


This was submitted by an anonymous contributor. Bloggie thanks you.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost/Chancellor Gold Part 1 of 2, Summary Statistics

Here is Part 1 of the Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold, containing the front matter of the report. Part two containing the comment sections is presented in the next post below this one:





Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost/Chancellor Gold part 2 of 2, The Comments

By popular demand, here are the comment sections from the Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold. Once again, please accept Bloggie's apology for any format quirks that may have crept into the document:

Comment sections begin immediately below:


Part 2
Comments on
Communication/Interpersonal Skills
2.1 I appreciate the townhall and other meetings.
2.2 Jeff Gold is an excellent speaker in various settings; he is also a caring individual who offers
his expertise as we navagate personal or family health issues. Further, he is forthcoming
and does not dodge difficult questions.
2.3 Communication is consistently medical in nature. Appears unable to communicate with
non- medical personnel in an effective manner. This negatively affects teamwork capacity.
Develops goals that are medical only in focus.
2.4 On occassion he can be heavy- handed which makes people feel at risk to provide open
feedback. Generally speaking, and considering his position, I think he works hard to reach
out to the community, students and his senior staff. He does not have much interaction with
the rest of the faculty.
2.5 Dr. Gold is provost of the HSC. He has not attended an assembly of the faculty in my
college for two years. I do not think it rests with the faculty to extend an invitation but
rather for the provost to be engaged with all colleges on the HSC.
2.6 His future goals for the College are presented with a limited and shallow set of facts.
2.7 Verbal committments have not been honored or have not been remembered after the fact.
Construction committments have been poorly communicated.
2.8 Communication is lacklustre
2.9 Dr Gold is a team player only if he is dictating the course of the team. Basically, it is his
way or the highway. Dr Gold does not seem to be an active, interested listener.
2.10 Very articulate but shallow. Quite capable of saying different things to different people on
the same topic, base on his guess of what the audience wants to hear.
2.11 Very articulate, yet information is not always accurate or correct. Teamwork at administrative
but not faculty level
2.12 In the five or six years that Dr. Gold has been the Provost for my unit, I believe that he
has actually visited the unit once (and that was during his “tour” when he started the job).
3
Part 2. Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills Page 4 of 22
2.13 Dr Gold is deliberately evasive.
2.14 I have been in meetings with Jeff Gold when he was talking with someone from New York
about the crazy people in the midwest. He was laughing at people from Ohio who went to
Cabela’s. In his first few years here we was telling 4th year students to leave Ohio and go
to the east coast where things were happening. This is the man who was given the task of
keeping residents local? I have also seen him in a large auditorium on numerous occasions
talking about “professionalism” while belittling faculty members who teach ethics. How
unprofessional is that! I have seen him ask for input from Chairs and then if any disagreed
with his established opinion, he would yell at them. Look at the number of people he has
bullied and many are now gone. I am embarrassed to say these things but feel they must
be said.
2.15 Few opportunities for faculty to share concerns, engage in attentive ’tuned in ’ listening and
real problem solving activites and then work to come to mutually agreeable solutions.
2.16 There were an occasional time when meeting with our faculty that he appeared to be not
listening to our concerns and continued with his agenda of concerns
2.17 Dr. Gold often emails faculty about issues, however Dr. Gold makes very little effort to
establish a two- way communication route and give the faculty an opportunity to voice
concerns about important policies especially those related to the faculty’s research efforts.
In my own personal experience, some of his efforts at communication such as sending out
“congratulation” letters upon receipt of a grant have been inconsistently followed by threats
of terminal contracts within a span of a few weeks. This demonstrates that the dean is
really oblivious or somewhat incapable. I’m not sure if it is poor communication or lack of
leadership.
2.18 An excellent orator. I enjoy listening to him and always learn something; however, as a
faculty member he is not engaged with my college for which he is the assigned administrator.
I think he has interacted with CHSHS twice in 2 years. A year ago he attended a meeting
with CHSHS and said he would get back to the faculty and staff concerning specific budget
questions and to date...he still hasn’t responded. A Provost with administration set policy,
but there aren’t opportunities to interact with him.
2.19 Verbal communications are not always clear. Dr Gold seems to make incorrect assumptions
about the function of academic systems within the university that he is not acquainted with,
decreasing the accuracy of his statements.
2.20 There is an undercurrent of mean- spiritedness to some of his communication that is not
professional nor helpful.
2.21 multiple promises to “get back” with faculty regarding critical issues. Never any feedback,
never a response.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 3
Comments on Technical &
Professional Expertise
3.1 While the provost has done a commendable job, I am not sure that the provost is as experienced
or knowledgeable in areas outside of medicine as he is in issues related to medical
education.
3.2 Understands medical education very well and encourages innovation and collaboration (interprofessional,
simulation, etc.). Does not understand traditional academic education or
even other health professions with depth. He is learning, but the COM perspective comes
to the forefront.
3.3 Again, is very medically focused. If rating were related to Medical campus only, Dr. Gold
would be a role model. Not as well prepared to manage within the total undergraduate to
graduate liberals university.
3.4 Dr. Gold is clearly more comfortable in his arena of medical education. His knowledge of
the research taking place is superficial at best. As a result, on occasion he oversteps his
knowledge and says something that isn’t completely true.
3.5 Does not show balanced regard for programs other than medicine.
3.6 His apparent limited under about the histories of the top 100 is a little frightening. But
then again it makes it easier to say anything you want to people who love a good story and
don’t bother to explore the facts...
3.7 Extraordinary committment to organizing curriculum.
3.8 Seems poor because of leadership style (item below) and poor communication (item above)
3.9 Well versed in LCME, not significantly in other majors on HSC
3.10 The administrative style is too old for a modern American medical center. Knows enough
about educational issues at the School of Medicine. But has amazing lack of knowlege and
expertise on educational matters of other schools and areas he is supposed to lead.
3.11 Primary focus seems to be on the clinical enterprise and issues. Depite added emphasis on
medical students it comes at costs to remaining health science campus issues
5
Part 3. Comments on Technical & Professional Expertise Page 6 of 22
3.12 Dr. Gold obviously follows the higher education literature. But, like Dr. Jacobs, he has
never lived the life of a professor (being a Professor of Surgery in a Medical school is a
far cry from the life of a professor that most of us live). Thus, he appears to have little
appreciation for what professors do, as well as the many factors that influence the culture
of a university.
3.13 Seems unaware of how the university actually gets its work done. Aims toward prestigious
research but burdens researchers with large numbers of unprepared and uninterested
students of low ability.
3.14 Clinical background and expertise insufficient for administration of a liberal arts campus.
3.15 I don’t know if he knows about “metropolitan” universities but he seems to know about
medical schools. He has learned on the job well but he believes he knows more about every
area of medical teaching than he really does. He should allow content experts to teach their
courses without trying to dictate curriculum.
3.16 Focus on improving quality of education, support for effective teaching and student learning
could be improved. Focus seems to be on other issues, but not really on education.
3.17 Knows the medical school well. Needs to imporve knowledge of his programs outside of the
health professions
3.18 This dean has made very little effort to encourage and foster academic research and in many
ways is undermining research efforts.
3.19 Without question understands medicine and medical education, doesn’t display behaviors
that indicate an understanding of the undergraduate curriculum and graduate education
outside of the COM.
3.20 Dr. Gold’s knowledge if broader higher education issues (i.e., broader than medical education)
does not seem to be very broad or deep, other than knowledge of funding issues at the
state and national level (which he does appear to have expertise).
3.21 He clearly favors some individuals and negates others within the institution that clearly
affects his judgments, thus his administration is a far cry from successful.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 4
Comments on Problem Solving &
Decision-Making
4.1 Sometimes I am concerned that decisions are made without considering the impact that
they will have on students, staff members (clinical and nonclinical), faculty, guests. Decisions
made solely on financial considerations without considering the impact on learning, research,
and service are troublesome. (Perhaps the issue is more with a lack of communication - it
is not clear that non- financial impacts are considered in decision- making.)
4.2 Handles decisions using appropriate values. The lack of resources is a continuing problem.
4.3 Hires very competent people and then micro- manages down to the faculty level. Supported
a strategic plan concept that was neither strategic or planful.
4.4 Dr. Gold believes in concensus decision- making and works hard to build concensus. Sometimes
we need him to be more directive, even if it makes him the ’bad guy’.
4.5 Decision making process seems to favor medical school over other colleges.
4.6 Needs to improve delegation, very centralized decision- making for the most part.
4.7 An “authoritarian” leadership style is at odds with a university (but is the norm in private
business)- and this is not seen/understood.
4.8 From my experience, Dr Gold seems to be consistent (not necessarily a good thing) in his
problem solving and decision- making process. That is, he seems to be inflexible at times.
4.9 Seems to believe that if he does not make a decision on a difficult problem, the problem will
disappear.
4.10 Understands problem solving, but chooses to ignore problems and make decisions independent
of majority of stakeholders
4.11 In my one encounter with Dr. Gold, on a matter when my input should have been the
primary determinant of an important decision, my input was completely disregarded and
Dr. Gold “told” me what would be occurring.
4.12 Dr. Gold’s leadership in the strategic planning and in addressing the swine flu outbreak are
examples of his outstanding performance in this area.
7
Part 4. Comments on Problem Solving & Decision-Making Page 8 of 22
4.13 Can you say “ram his approach down your throat”? He knows what he wants and what he
wants is for your to agree with him. There is one way to do it and that is his way. If it is
your idea, then it cannot be a good one. If you want him to agree with you, the trick is to
make him think it was his idea. That is sad.
4.14 I do not feel that all perspectives and stakeholders are at the table for discussions. Too
many decisions made without information about the big picture and then situations need
to be cleaned up.
4.15 In some instances does not want to consider other approaches to solve the problem other
than his own or the administration
4.16 It seems as if problem solving has been inconsistent especially related to faculty support for
research. Its not clear whether some departments are favored over others.
4.17 I have not been privy to enough information about Dr. Gold’s decision making and problem
solving skills to make a judgment here.
4.18 Threat and intimidation appear to be his basic methods for resolution - especially with those
with whom he disagrees of dislikes.
4.19 Provost does not trust department heads and deans to do their jobs. Very slow and unclear
on decision making. Decisions have unintended negative consequences.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 5
Comments on Responsibility &
Accountability
5.1 Appears responsible and fair. (There is always the perception that his dual role as Dean of
COM and Provost creates an apparent conflict of interest.)
5.2 Often assigns responsibility to others without giving them the authority to act.
5.3 See 1 above. Most instances are very good but work needs to be done to improve communication
and verbal committments.
5.4 Seems poor because of leadership style (item above) and poor communication (item above)
5.5 Dr Gold does follow thru with projects and decisions very well. However, although he is
professional when dealing with others he is also cold and aloof.
5.6 During the institution’s economic preoblems of the past 2 years, he has shown complete
of understanding of the issues, and has delegated decisions to unqualified people without
holding them accountable for the consequences.
5.7 Follows through with some decisions, but bases for decisions are rarely transparent.
5.8 Seems to be one of the two people running the entire university but remains out of sight
on the main campus. Appears to view main campus as a source of operating funds for the
medical school.
5.9 He will often assign responsibilities to others but he wants to take the credit himself. It
is always about “Jeff Gold” and what “Jeff Gold” has done. He rarely gives others credit
for the work they do to make him look successful. He also holds people accountable based
on numbers on a survey rather than reality. He talks to students about faculty more than
he talks with the faculty themselves. He often only wants to hear the negative stuff and
if students say something positive he shuts them up and wants to go back to pushing the
conversation toward the negative. .
5.10 This is the first time I have been given an opportunity to evaluate Dr. Gold. I hope
he will constructively utilize these critiques to provide a more support and fair research
environment.
5.11 As Dean of the COM and Provost, it is too large a job for one person and how can a Provost
hold the position of Dean of a college be objective when financial decisions need to be made
and he has little knowledge of COP and HSHS?
5.12 He tends to blame instead of holding accountable. He is a very poor role model for professional
accountability.
9
Part 6
Comments on Planning & Organizing
6.1 Jeff Gold’s development of the health care aspect of the strategic plan was well planned.
The entire strategic planning process has attempted to include others in the dialog, but
some faculty members who wanted to participate couldn’t find an avenue to volunteer.
6.2 Makes what appears to be very random decisions about personnel and “lay- offs” without
involving people who could provide valuable data. Constantly micro- manages instead of
depending upon highly qualified people to perform their duties appropriately.
6.3 Dr. Gold is clearly a strong proponent of strategic planning. I’m concerned about the lack
of prioritization, however.
6.4 Priorities seems to favor the medical school and hospital over other academic programs.
6.5 Has shown no engagement with faculty in my college. Recommendations may come up from
administrators bu thtere is evidence of seeking the input of faculty stakeholders about those
decisions.
6.6 Concentrates attentions heavily on stakeholders in medicine rather than entire range of
colleges on HSC
6.7 #1 for any administrator is figuring out who you have (ie. among faculty) and what their
priorities are. This administration’s “strategic planning” has not seemed focus nor has used
the university’s strengths well.
6.8 Dr Gold seems to be a good planner, and has some good ideas. However, he fails encourage
“buy- in” from the stakeholders. Instead he demands “buy- in”.
6.9 Seems to have done adequate- fair job in the hospital. But the academic side has suffered
since he took over.
6.10 Develops plans with faculty but rarely implements. Buy- in occurs, but then is not implemented,
so is lost
6.11 The Strategic Planning process that we went through, under Dr. Gold’s direction, was a
HUGE exercise with no visible outcome. We did it because he wanted it! Any of us who
were involved could have listed in 10 minutes the same outcomes that it took months to
develop through the process.Most of what was identified in the strategic planning process is
stuff that would have been done without strategic planning. And, of course, there doesn’t
seem to be any link between the distribution of support and any of the strategic goals that
10
Part 6. Comments on Planning & Organizing Page 11 of 22
departments and colleges identified. The senior leadership has their “vision”, and that is
what gets support; not what was developed through the strategic planning process.
6.12 There is no confidence whatever in the ability of Dr Gold to plan effectively. He does not
understand the strategic mission of the University.
6.13 He asks departments to meet unrealistic standards based on what seems to be his whim.
He comes up with a number and that is the bar you must reach. He does not provide the
resources necessary for departments to meet those goals
6.14 More transparency in HSC decisions would be appropriate, more discussion with stakeholders
and sharing of information. Open. Honest.
6.15 He has not convinced me that his priorities and financial planning is in the best interest of
the University. This is especially apparent in lack of planning to support research efforts.
6.16 Dr. Gold’s rhetoric about strategic planning seems to go beyond his actual involvement. The
on- line “matrix” set up to monitor evaluation on the implementation of the last strategic
plan appeared to be at Dr. Gold’s initiative, but its use and Dr. Gold’s enthusiasm for it
seemed to disappear quickly.
6.17 He commits to faculty, but quickly changes his direction, i.e., a good example of “out of
sight, out of comsideration.”
6.18 Decisions tend to be top down decisions with unclear reasons.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 7
Comments on Leadership
7.1 I believe serving as both the Dean of the COM and the Provost is a conflict of interest.
These positions should be filled by separate individuals.
7.2 Seems well respected in the medical community.
7.3 Dr. Gold’s leadership is what attracted me to come to UT.
7.4 Actions seems to favor the medical school and hospital over other academic programs.
7.5 Provost Gold would be well instructed to spend some time looking/reading with academic/
democratic leadership styles, and not authoritarian leadership.
7.6 Dr Gold needs improvement in his ability to motivate those that he is trying to lead. Just
to come out and say this is the way it is going to be is not motivational. He should try more
of a coaching approach. Dr Gold projects himself as an excellent leader.
7.7 Takes on strong leadership role. LCME effort was best effort, again within comfort zone.
Buy- in from faculty squandered.
7.8 Dr. Gold does not appear to be actively involved in the operation of anything but the
medical school. THis is in spite of the fact that he is responsible for three other colleges.
7.9 leads successfully down some treacherous dead ends
7.10 In some areas he is a fine leader. Bullies can lead but they do not inspire.
7.11 The characteristics above are characteristics of leadership - when these are thought to be
lacking, it follows that leadership is not as effective as it could be. Does not inspire or
motivate as much as he could or should. Does not demonstrate the ability to build a sense
of team.
7.12 Please see other comments
7.13 Very little consistent leadership, he’s obviously too busy. He works hard, but he is not
serving all of his colleges due to his dual role.
7.14 He clearly appears to want to take a leadership role, but unfortunately it is in a bullying
mode of behavior.
7.15 He has not being effective as Dean of the College of Medicine and some what effective as
Provost. The every day operations of the college has being delegated to a secondary roll.
7.16 Has a tendancy to to attempt to manage affaisr at the depertmental and at the college
level, rather than setting expectations and allowing deans and department heads to arrange
details.
12
Part 8
Comments on Program Management
8.1 It is difficult to understand how one can perform the duties of dean and provost without
some form of favoritism. This situation should be avoided just because of appearances, if
nothing else.
8.2 Concerns about conflicts of interest with private nature of UT physicians and other alliances.
No transparency for moneys that pass through and from the private businesses.
8.3 Tends to focus on needs of medicine over the needs of all colleges on HSC
8.4 Remediation for Gold on what these concepts imply is needed here. More specifically and
under his “leadership”, I do not sense that patient safety is a priority even at the hospital...
only when convenient or others maintain this focus. Second, collecting bonuses is
frought with problems.
8.5 Makes verbal committments for financial support without having funds to back up offer to
departments.
8.6 There are certain groups within the UTMC community that get preferential treatment. This
has not changed in the many years that I have been at UTMC.
8.7 Says all the right things. But in at least 4 specific “ethics” cases (that I am aware of) that
have been brought to him (through appropriate processes) his final decisions have allowed
the continuations of the inappropriate behaviors.
8.8 Sometimes lacks openness or transparency in decisions. Does not often follow through on
stated commitments. Shows favoritism to some individuals or groups, rather than focusing
on what is good for the overall faculty and university. Does not always meet the standards
set for faculty.
8.9 it seems unethical to accept large bonuses when there are too few staff and faculty to carry
out basic operations because we ’can’t afford them’
8.10 This is the significant failing of this man. He sees himself as a paragon of ethics but he
treats others who he disagrees with with contempt. I think it is fine that he doesn’t like
people. Not everyone is likable. But he should not use his place at the podium as a forum
for badmouthing people.
8.11 All of the descriptors apply from time to time.
13
Part 8. Comments on Program Management Page 14 of 22
8.12 A conflict of interest being the Provost and Dean of the College of Medicine
8.13 I have seen some inconsistencies in decision making but cannot say whether it is a matter
of integrity.
8.14 Provost/Dean of Medicine???
8.15 Insults members of the faculty publicly which has hurt him and his reputation within the
institution and the community.
8.16 communication requires improvement
8.17 Provost should not also be a Dean.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 9
Comments on Human Capital
Management
9.1 Sometimes people and positions are sacrificed for other initiatives - lack of communication
about why this is being done makes us feel like we are being left in the dark - and this makes
it hard to have trust in leadership.
9.2 We seem to constantly lose quality people, such as the former chair of pediatrics.
9.3 I think that this is a challenging area because we need to do some pruning and touch
performance management of tenured faculty. Dr. Gold will have to set the example before
he can expect the Department Chairs to follow suit.
9.4 Many excellent faculty have left the University because the actions of the administrator are
not consistent with the words that are spoken. Resources are not adequate. Pay disparity
is not adequately addressed.
9.5 Related to strategic planning item, there is a poor use of faculty- with a strategic plan that
is lacklustre and not following institutional strengths
9.6 UTMC is in turmoil! UTMC seems to be losing the best physicians. This is a direct
reflection on the leadership.
9.7 Has attracted some good individuals, but this outweighed but his dismal choices. Also, the
retention record of the good faculty is miserable.
9.8 Sees importance of recruitment and retention but does not takes steps to improve processes.
Sells the university but then doesn’t deliver on promises. Does not effectively develop
internal talent.
9.9 I suspect that Dr. Gold follows this area closely for theMedical School, but it appears that he
has very little understanding or interest in this for the other units under his administration.
9.10 Lack of knowledge of Main Campus products and mission implementation is very problematic.
9.11 Dr. Gold is always respectful and professional in his approach to employees. His personality
is not fosters a high level personal engagement for a collaboration.
15
Part 9. Comments on Human Capital Management Page 16 of 22
9.12 If we are trying to become an orthopedic hospital, he does fine with hiring. But he has
farmed most of the teaching out to area physicians. Faculty are not supposed to teach, they
are supposed to earn money.
9.13 Dr. Gold has consistently shown a disregard for promoting faculty recruitment and retention
or even in replacing faculty who have left. This poor management of human capital makes
it difficult for a department to do well.
9.14 Everytime I have been in his presence he has been polite, he does not engage in conversation
unless it is of particular interest to him. Needs to improvement in interpersonal relationships,
people have joked that he lacks interpersonal skill because he’s a physician, a Provost needs
interpersonal skills.
9.15 He could fall into the “Meets Expectations” category if he could let go of his mean- spirited
tendencies.
9.16 Delay in start up funds has cost the university grant funding.
9.17 There are a lot of promises to hire new faculty that could not be accomplished because there
are no resources, or the package offered is not enough to attract new faulty or there is not
enough lab space.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 10
Comments on Financial Management
10.1 It seems as though money that is in the budget one day has been moved out the next
day. It’s totally unclear how decisions are made about carry forward money. There’s no
communication concerning this. It encourages spending budgets down to zero at the end
of each year, as opposed to encouraging fiscal responsibility.
10.2 Top down financial management does not allow for meaningful collaboration with faculty.
Concern about conflicts of interest with the UT physicians and employee as well as student
health plans. UT physicians are given 100
10.3 I have had no communication to evaluate budgetary responses for my college. The budget
of our college is not shared by our lead administrator and some questions about it are not
answered by our college lead administrator.
10.4 The college budget is a black box.
10.5 Taking a bonus when the university is “hurting financially” goes a long way towards suggesting
you are not part of the community
10.6 It is hard rectify financial responsibility with a $200,000 bonus when it is repeatedly stressed
that the University has to tighten its financial belt.
10.7 Too late to coach.
10.8 but does not see the importance of engaging stakeholders prior to making financial decisions.
Sometimes just feigns attention to stakeholders
10.9 All medicine.....the left- overs for the other colleges
10.10 Underperforming units are being subsidized by efficient units. This is terrible financial
management. It is a disincentive to good management of resources.
10.11 after two years without a budget departments are paying the price now; saving costs by
eliminating low- paying support staff in order to pay huge bonuses to top administrators
10.12 Paid like a backup shortstop for the Tigers. Plays like one too.
10.13 Not really part of the position but employee is involved in financial mandates.
10.14 He does not engage with faculty on these issues. He follows the directives of someone (I
assume the president) but the faculty he meets with are those he self- selects. He surrounds
himself with those who cannot or will not say no to him.
17
Part 10. Comments on Financial Management Page 18 of 22
10.15 It is not clear to me that Dr. Gold engages the best financial skills. I do not see any money
brought in as a result of Dr. Gold’s efforts, yet his salary is extremely high even when
there is not a cost of living increase for faculty.
10.16 Budgets are delayed and unclear.
10.17 budgetary decisions are implemented without prior consultationwith units and often without
explanation
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 11
Comments on Diversity
11.1 What diversity? This university, especially the medical side, seems run by primarily white
men, with some white women. There’s even a white man heading the diversity initiatives
now. There seems to be very little understanding of the ways diversity enhances student
education and staff enrichment.
11.2 Tend to look at diversity through a race/ethnicity lens only. Little attention to issues of
class, gender.
11.3 It seems most efforts have been done onthe main campus with regard to diversity training/
inclusion but the atmosphere on the HSC is good.
11.4 Only if that diversity comes with $$$ attached does it seem to matter
11.5 Pays lip- sevice to diversity. Institutes appropriate “policies”, but seldom these are put to
action.
11.6 as long as we remain politically correct, actual operations and achievements are not relevant
11.7 He does will with Surgeons and his superiors. Toward those who are of lower rank he seems
to show disdain.
11.8 I am bothered by the lack of sensitivity as far as promoting diversity and inclusion at this
institution. I have personally witnessed discriminatory remarks regarding ethnicity during
faculty recruitment and lack of sensitivity to women. Although I do not believe that Dr.
Gold is insensitive to these issues, these problems are occuring under his leadership. I
think he needs to be more aware of some of these problems and actively promote diversity
to a greater degree. There should be some evaluation as to the relative number of ethnic
minorities and women hired and getting tenure compared to Cuacasian men. I feel there
has been bias in many situations or atleast a lack of committment to promote diversity.
11.9 Dr. Gold does not, in my experience, project a thorough knowledge of, or commitment, to
diversity issues, especially those related to women and sexual orientation.
11.10 He cultivates diversity when it suits his purposes to promote himself based on what I have
observed.
19
Part 12
Overall Comments
12.1 While I respect and admire the achievements of this provost, I believe he is to singularly
devoted to medical education. Too much of his time and attention are devoted to COM
and the hospital. I would prefer to see the provost divest himself of the job of Dean of
COM and be the provost for all colleges and programs on the HSC. Leave the COM and
the hospital to others.
12.2 Haven’t had any open communication with Dr. Gold since last spring’s layoffs. Although
micro- managing, Dr. Gold has done little to learn about how his decisions affect the
people who are most affected. Dr. Gold is very bright, but seems so focused on medical
education, that it limits his ability to foster growth and enthusiam for other areas under
his responsibility.
12.3 The biggest concern is the preference that is shown to the college of medicine because this
individual also acts as dean of the college of medicine.
12.4 I don’t feel that I have enough contact with Dr. Gold to really evaluate anything about
his performance. I’ve only ever seen him once in a meeting, and have never spoken to him.
He was fine at that meeting, but he only was introducing people... so I didn’t really get to
hear anything from him about his role or his vision for the University. I am just a faculty
member, but I don’t really know what goes on in the broader university, or our plans. In
a sense, I think this suggests that it would be useful (even if we had one college meeting
early in an academic year) just for academic staff to get to hear Dr. Gold and gain an
impression of him and his vision for our University. This is the only thing I can ask for...
a little more communication. It is not meant as a criticism, more as a request for more
communication.
12.5 He is overextended, needs to delegate more.
12.6 I used the above to comment. This administration needs to rework/reprioritize their foci
and work with (not against) their human capital. Working from a private business model of
leadership in a structure that has spent 100+ years moving towards an alternate (better?)
model of governance is many steps backwards and counterproductive...spend some time
with history.
12.7 Even though I personally do not care for Dr Gold, and thinks he needs improvement in
some areas, he is probably do a fair job.
20
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 21 of 22
12.8 Despite Dr Gold’s keen intellect and obvious verbal skills, his leadership from an academic
standpoint has been a disappointment. Dr. Gold Would rather put on a good face than
implement effective policies to achieve stated goal of “Club 100” status. He has to many
hats as Provost, Dean and Head of UTMC. Stays in own comfort zone related to clinical
enterprise and student sphere...with limited knowledge or attention to academic issues
relevant to a biomedical research institution.
12.9 Dr. Gold is obviously very bright. I have no doubt that he is a very effective Dean for
the College of Medicine. However, he has very little knowledge of or appreciation for what
goes on in the other colleges that he administers. The perception held by many faculty is
that he views the other colleges as an after- thought....i.e. they get his time when he is
done dealing with the important work of the medical school.
12.10 I am very honored to work with Provost Gold.
12.11 A dedicated and competent leader who has a clear and broad vision for the University and
the College of Medicine.
12.12 I have worked with many deans and provosts in my time at MCO/MUO/UT. I have been
able to work well with all of them until this one came. I see in Jeff Gold the problem
with having a provost and a dean in one person. As a faculty member, I need a dean
who will be my advocate. Jeff Gold has never been an advocate of the Faculty. He has
advocated for individuals but not the Faculty. He would be a fine Chair of the Department
of Surgery. But he is no Dean. When he first arrived at MUO he gave a presentation of
9/11. He showed close up pictures of people jumping to their death from the building. I
was appalled. He spoke about himself as one of the many heros of the day. Again I was
appalled. In his time in Ohio, if he even lives here, he he has shown himself to be an
arrogant ass. I wish him luck in his next job and I wish him Godspeed.
12.13 In my opinion, Dr. Gold is a very intelligent and capable person. However, I think the
demands of the positions he holds (as both Dean and Provost) prevent him from being as
effective as he could be in either role. There may be just too much for any one person, no
matter how capable he is, to do or think about and consequently, things routinely fall off
his radar screen. Any one item or issue might not be a big deal to him, but it often is to
those of us who are looking to him for leadership, guidance, and support.
12.14 Dr. Gold has been and continues to be an exemplary leader. I feel honored to work with
him.
12.15 Overall, I think the Provost has met expectations for his responsibilities but in terms
of problem solving, he needs to listen and try to understand the issues inherent in that
particular college. Conflict of interest with both positions
12.16 Dr. Gold’s has been a good provost, however he needs to have a working knowledge of his
other departments and programs.
12.17 My overall hope is that Dr. Gold will be more sensitive to faculty issues, especially in
regard to research. I hope he will promote a more supportive research environment, make
a better effort to retain exceptional faculty, and be more consistent with communications
to individual faculties. I also hope he will look into the potential problem of bias when
recruiting, retaining, or promoting faculty and make a better effort to increase diversity at
this institution.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of Provost Gold
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 22 of 22
12.18 I am aware that he is detail oriented, he reads accreditation self- study’s word for word;
however, talking to students, faculty, staff, visitor’s, parents, agency administrator’s, etc.
would provide a realistic overview from real people with real information. The self study is
a snapshot not a video, he needs to interact and talk with the people within the university.
I don’t doubt he works hard and works alot, but does he really know the university or
just COM? I think he needs to invest time in meeting various student club organizations
affiliated with degreed programs, advisory boards, practitioners, etc. I suspect he doesn’t
know the faculty or the staff who rely on his leadership, he need to improve his “universityside”
manner or in physician’s terms, “bedside manner.”
12.19 Dr. Gold seems to have too much power and influence; so much so that Dr. Haggett is not
taken seriously.
12.20 I have not interacted enough to respond to the above queries
12.21 Has a limited understanding of the resources required to foster research activity and grantmanship
in the basic sciences and a somewhat fuzzy understanding of how to collectively
engaged the clinical faculty and basic science faculty to promote ’translational’ research.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Larry Burns Now Faculty Member, too?





This is posted at http://www.utoledo.edu/campus/administration/burns/index.html

Friday, June 18, 2010

TFP editorial on backstage shenanigans by UT upper admin - updated

Note: The article below was updated and expanded by Mr. Miller on June 25. The original link no longer works, so I have updated the link from my original post. -- horns n' fins

From http://www.toledofreepress.com/2010/06/25/live-and-learn/

UPDATE: Live and learn
Written by Michael Miller, Editor in Chief

Dear University of Toledo Alumni Association:

Thank you for the recent notice that my alumni association membership is about to expire. While I greatly appreciate your services, I am not going to contribute to the association this year. I wanted to write to you and explain my reasons. ....

... continue reading the updated article and TFP reader comments

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Letter from Alum

The following letter was sent to Bloggie yesterday with the note that it may be of interest to ascforum readers:



Hi,

I've been reading the Spring 2010 edition of the alumni magazine. Larry Burns and Shanda Gore write in their introductory letter,

Your University of Toledo has just finished another engaging academic year with important milestones accomplished, including

*The opening of the Minority Business Incubator
*Dedication of the Scott Park Campus of Energy and Innovation
*Dedication of the Veterans Plaza
*Savage & Associates Complex for Learning and Engagement dedicated for the College of Business Administration
*The eighth straight semester of enrollment growth

Also, your University of Toledo Lady Rocket swimmers won their first Mid-American Conference championship. The Lady Rocket basketball team won their division, and the football team has just finished a very productive spring season.

Looking at that list of accomplishments, the typical reader might wonder if any of the thousands of faculty, staff, and students at the university *learned* anything or *discovered* anything in 2009-10. As an alumnus, I'm really interested in what the academic core of the university (the faculty, staff, and students) is doing to distinguish UT from all the similar institutions in Ohio. One gets the impression from this letter that the mission of the university is instead to dedicate buildings and win athletic championships.

Just another look at where the hearts and minds of the administration lie.

Monday, June 14, 2010

"Inside Higher Ed" Lambasts Jacobs (Once Again)

See the Inside Higher Ed article on the Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs (the review is posted below in two parts). Bloggie has a question--when exactly did the Faculty Senate of The University of Toledo become a few disgruntled faculty members? That's how it is being portrayed--with the usual misdirections we have all come to expect from this adminsitration. Jacobs says it is just "noise."

Jacobs Raked Over Coals at Inside Higher Ed

And what has happened to the reviews of the two Provosts?

Surprise! BOT minimizes faculty input and backs Jacobs "100%"

Trustees voice strong support for president following annual review
By Jon Strunk : June 14th, 2010

With its annual assessment of the president finished, The University of Toledo Board of Trustees emphasized complete support for the president in an announcement to the UT community June 14.

Board Chair Olivia Summons said the trustees are “100 percent behind” UT President Lloyd Jacobs, his handling of the University’s sustainability during the last four years, and the ongoing development of local, regional, national and international partnerships.

“The University of Toledo is on the right strategic path and we are there in very large part due to the leadership of Lloyd Jacobs,” Summons said. “This board is grateful to Dr. Jacobs for his innovative thinking and recognition that UT has the potential to be more than we are today.”

Summons said she and incoming Board Chair Bill Fall told the president the trustees remain committed to a resolution passed Jan. 25 calling for the president to: “accelerate fundamental, transformational and sustainable change to elevate the stature of undergraduate and nonprofessional graduate programs during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to create a vibrant institution thriving into the 21st century.”

Fall, who previously has served as chair of the Board’s Finance Committee, praised Jacobs for the University’s financial management and oversight, saying the trustees have “great confidence” in UT’s fiduciary strength, even in this time of difficult and challenging budget constraints.

Summons said it is important for Jacobs to continue assembling a strong senior leadership team, pointing to upcoming searches for a provost and deans in the colleges of Arts and Sciences and Law, the Judith Herb College of Education and the School of Solar and Advanced Renewable Energy.

Both Summons and Fall pointed to the need for improved communication with stakeholders inside and outside the University and asked Jacobs to examine current communication methods and consider enhancements.

Summons also said it is important for Jacobs to recognize that some feel he has a perceived allegiance to the Health Science Campus.

“While I believe the president has done an excellent job balancing issues across all campuses, it’s important to acknowledge that this impression exists and seek to alleviate these concerns,” she said.

Summons also thanked Faculty Senate for submitting to the Board for consideration an evaluation of the president. Jacobs’ evaluation, conducted by faculty members who returned surveys, included comments on his performance, many of which were critical.

“Change is never easy and that always creates some anxiety,” Summons said. “The comments the faculty gave us and those that came in from the Board’s survey were discussed with the president. Although the Board did not concur with all the comments, we did incorporate the constructive suggestions into our discussions with the president.”

“Looking back to where we were four years ago, the Board is pleased by where UT is today,” Summons said. “Whether the measure is student enrollment, community partnerships, external research funding, patient-care quality or an increasingly international reputation, this institution is on the right track and the leadership of President Jacobs is a primary reason why,” she said.

retrieved from:
http://utnews.utoledo.edu/index.php/06_14_2010/trustees-voice-strong-support-for-president-following-annual-review

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Performance Review of President Jacobs, Part 1 of 2 Parts

In this first of a two-part posting, Bloggie will include the front matter from the Faculty Senate's review such as the summary statistics. A second posting will contain the remaining 48 pages or so of comments that were also part of the review.








Performance Review of President Jacobs, Comments Section

This post is the second of a two-part posting of President Jacobs' Performance Review. This second part contains the extensive comment sections of the Review in their entirety. Bloggie apologizes for any formating quirks that may have resulted while posting.

Comments begin immediately below:


UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs

Part 2

Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills
2.1 None of the above accurately describe my impressions. Dr. Jacobs does not show sincere
interest in communicating clearly and simply. He comes across as a politician who does
things for political reasons rather than basic decisions on ethical and value related principles.
2.2 Communication often appears to have doubling meaning and is unclear whether based in
fact or aspiration
2.3 Often does not communicate with faculty. Is selective in the faculty with whom he chooses
to communicate. Has no respect for and works poorly with the Faculty Senate.
2.4 Sometimes Dr. Jacobs public words conflict with the actions of the University. (I know that
this is not entirely Dr. Jacob’s fault because he has a lot of people reporting to him that
make decisions, but the lack of consistency makes it hard to know who and what to trust.)
Whenever I’ve met Dr. Jacobs at functions, he has always been pleasant.
2.5 The President has made transparency a big part of his presidency. But that transparency is
false. The frequent Town Halls are not helpful if we do not get the sense that he is listening
to the concerns of the community.
2.6 Top down management style is good for a hospital, but not appropriate for a comprehensive
university. I have sent constructive suggestions to the president and he has chosen to ignore
them. It seems that he tries to intimidate people and if those under him are not prone to
intimidation, he finds a way to terminate their employment during downsizing.
2.7 Shows the world that he communicates via media. Actually is very inattentive to the needs
of the university.
2.8 He doesn’t communicate. He pontificates. He dictates. He does not include, he excludes
-making decisions that neither include faculty or wish to include faculty.
2.9 I have been GREATLY IMPRESSED by Dr. Jacobs’ use of the MyUT website, and the
videos... as well as the media. He is a real presence who can always be seen communicating
with the faculty, staff and students. Great stuff. I have also been impressed with his personal
friendliness at various functions -very open and warm towards me as a faculty member.
3
Part 2. Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills Page 4 of 49
2.10 On occassion the President gets a bit loose with terminology that can be misinterpreted.
Generally this is okay, but when proposing major changes, many people who are already
weary will take offense to these comments even none were intended.
2.11 Dr. Joacobs does not adapt his message to an academic culture. Consequently, his message
is lost because of his terminology or lack of sensitivity to the connotation of his words.
2.12 Always greets by name; open to approach and dialogue
2.13 Poorly coordinated communication especially through deans and department chairs-problems
here may be routed in poor leadership (item below)as well as knowledge of history of higher
education in the US (item below).
2.14 needs to develop better working relationship with faculty senate and individual faculty
members beyond selected few; all to often makes decisions and policy on limited input
and focused on limited or selected information and not broad based decision making as is
required at such a diverse campus
2.15 The entire performance since the merger
2.16 is afraid of students and faculty; holds “town hall” meetings in a secluded small room; shoots
off mouth without thinking “throw the dean under the bus and move on”; snaps at reporters
“well that’s between me and my God”; vindictive: at staff award ceremony “Oh by the way,
pink slips went out at 3 p.m.”
2.17 Does not collaborate effectively with Faculty Senate. I am not on faculty senate but it seems this President uses them as an “advisory” group at best -but most often doesn’t listen to
the advise. The union is constantly at odds with this President. As a result, moral is low.
The President and his buddies have a top down mentality in which they bark out orders
and then stand back and try and sift through arguments and complaints to try and win one
by one.
2.18 science fan, ok, just don’t pretend otherwise
2.19 Dr. Jacobs has not been successful in gaining the trust of the campus community. He seems
hostile to faculty, viewing us as enemies rather than individuals with intense commitments
and investment in the University of Toledo.
2.20 Inappropriate and self-serving use of media. Verbiage about non-medical comprehension,
but behavior belies these declarations.
2.21 Obviously thinks we are idiots.
2.22 In addition, his public speaking skills are an embarrassment.
2.23 Dr. Jacobs tries hard to communicate but he seems to not wish for input. I am not sure
this is true but this is the perception. When he arrived at MUO as president, he said, I
don’t like asking faculty for their opinion. I just want them to do what I want them to do.
This hasn’t really changed. I wish he would call me by my title instead of my first name. I
don’t suppose I could call him Lloyd at a public meeting but he seems to think it is ok to
refer to me by my first name. I am old school. I think I have to invite someone to call me
by my first name. Perhaps it is my heritage but he seems to think chumminess goes only
one way. It comes across as the arrogance of someone who is so far above you that you are
“Bill” but he is “President Jacobs”. It is disrespectufl.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 2. Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills Page 5 of 49
2.24 Seems to be only interested in the opinion of the group of male administrators around him
. . .
2.25 I feel that despite serious, sincere, and concentrated efforts to communicate with the President,
he simply does not “hear” others if they do not agree. I mean that in the sense that
he really never changes his mind, even in the face of very good arguments about why he
should.
2.26 President has developed system of regular townhall meetings. However during the meetings
he gives false information. For example, last year when there were layoffs, he said in the
townhall meeting that input was sought down to the chair level about what positions to cut.
That’s not true. I am a department chair and was shocked to learn of these layoffs. This
makes everything he says suspect. He chooses to hold townhall meetings in the smallest
room on campus it seems and posts people in the hall to move those who would like to
attend to a different room. This is not open communication. Why bother going. Listen on
the computer in the office, get interrupted and stop listening -it seems like it’s all the same
level of communication. He has also made some very embarrassing statements that have
made the press.
2.27 Waits too late to disseminate information.
2.28 President Jacobs words are hollow, often filled with cliches and many times incorrect. He
really needs to do a better job with fact checking before he speaks because he looks bad
and incompetant when he tries to exhibit a basic understanding of the functions at the
University. I have a hard time listening to him anymore as his speaches lack any form of
sincerity or demonstration of leadership. I have met Dr. Jacobs at least 5 times and he still
does not know who I am and gives the impression he does not care. This is how he treats a
Distinguished University Professor.
2.29 Communication is two way. President Jacobs appears to believe that communication is
merely announcing decisions that have already been made without adequate input from
faculty or staff or adequately considering the impact of the decision.
2.30 Often appears arrogant, not sure if he is aware of this, but it’s not a positive attribute. Not
sure he is aware of what his team is doing, often inidcates he has to “check with people.”
Interpersonal skills: opportunity for improvement. Sometimes he micro-manages: budget
amendments, tenure and promotion interviewing in 15 minutes to determine if the faculty
member is worthy of tenure and promotion? How about he meet the person when they are
hired and he engages with them and encourages them to seek out resources, etc. to support
them during the tenure and promotion process.
2.31 He attempts to communicate, but it is not effective and often not accurate. He does not
know about UT or higher education to lead this institution and this is readily apparent in
his communication efforts.
2.32 Very ineffective communication skills. Surgeon and military backgrounds have trained him
to give orders instead of participating in inclusive conversation. The most anti-social presidential
communicator in my 23 years at UT.
2.33 Of course, the President should address issues at their broadest. However, Dr. Jacobs also
addresses many issues that are quite low level, especially in the area of academics. This
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 2. Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills Page 6 of 49
dilutes the authority of the Provosts and he is not always sufficiently knowledgeable about
these issue to be helpful.
2.34 He has little to no interest in talking to the faculty. He is only interested in those who
immediately show they like his ideas.
2.35 I believe that everyone can work on communication and interpersonal skills, and there are
times when people have “off” days, and that’s okay. You can always improve on interpersonal
skills. I believe how Dr. Jacobs announced the layoffs (especially in December 2008)
was great and he did it very diplomatically. I also think that his townhall sessions are
done relatively well and are informative. However, I feel that the way he handled the TV
interviews and newspaper interviews for the bonuses issue in August-September 2009 was
downright horrible –enough that it warrents the “needs improvement” score. But, as I said
earlier, I truly believe that someone can improve in this area and I truly hope he does.
2.36 Appears uncomfortable speaking in public.
2.37 Listens to others but does what he wants.
2.38 He is a very hesitant and awkward public speaker. He, by his own admission, also tries to
be a “provocateur” when dealing with faculty. He succeeds at getting everyone “provoked””
but that is not a good thing as he thinks it is.
2.39 If you look at the ’alignments’ team members, you will see that most of the participants are
administrators rather than faculty.
2.40 Lloyd Jacobs does not communicate with the faculty since that involves information flowing
in both directions. He only pronounces edicts.
2.41 Attempts to communicate but does not succeed. Tends to give orders without regard for
input of others. Brings up bad news (layoffs, financial issues) at extremely inappropriate
times and venues (i.e., at Outstanding Staff Awards ceremony, at introduction of a major
guest speaker, etc). Has very poor interpersonal skills. Comes across as a bully rather than
an effective leader. Does not inspire people to follow him. Is not transparent with decision
making processes. Does not adequately convey reasons for decisions. Appears to display
favoritism.
2.42 President’s public comments have embarrassed the University. He seems to make no effort
at any real communication with faculty, staff, or students.
2.43 Does not demonstrate respect for faculty when addressing them. Is not able to change
the level of speaking to fit the audience he is addressing, this is particularly a problem
with students. Messages to staff are often inconsiderate and somewhat threatening-case in
point the recent statement in the state of the University address about the possible need to
“delete” some secretaries. Often seems to get angry if someone asks a follow-up question.
The “throw the dean under the bus” e-mail was almost two years ago and should have
caused some reflection and work on communication skills, yet there does not seem to be any
improvement. No direct knowledge of interpersonal conflicts.
2.44 If anything, he tries too hard with all of these web videos and town hall meetings.
2.45 Where is the hiring strategy, the budget priorities, the future direction for the Colleges?
The only thing that is certain is that every semester brings new cuts to budgets, programs
and plans.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 2. Comments on Communication/Interpersonal Skills Page 7 of 49
2.46 This president generally makes me hide my face in shame at this university. He has a
serious tendency to throw rather half-baked ideas out for discussion as though they are
already policy. My friends down on the HSC say this was the way he operated as president
of MCO/MUO as well. If the president really wants to talk about ideas and concepts,
maybe he might consider consulting with the faculty on either campus first. The faculty
are very intelligent and would be very helpful if allowed that opportunity. Additionally, the
president’s ability to manage the media is sorely lacking. The Toledo Blade, which clearly
seems to have a bone to pick with UT, needs to be managed more effectively. Allowing a
never ending stream of bad press due to poor decisions from the president’s office is not a
good way to increase the prestige of this university. I point to the discussion of furloughs
and administrator bonuses at the same time as very poor media management. That really
painted UT in a poor light.
2.47 President Jacobs has given speeches on the condition and future of the University that have
only raised concerns about his knowledge base as the leader of the University rather than
inspire confidence in his intentions and priorities. He does not demonstrate an ability to
listen and accept criticism from those who have more experience and knowledge. There is a
general climate of acquiescence among those who work with him rather than engagement.
2.48 May go through the motions to communicate but does not provide sufficient information.
2.49 The president has a way of dismissing criticism. His attitude seems to be that he does not
want to hear it. Faculty have repeatedly attempted to convey to him the concerns they have,
and it is almost as if he will purposefully do just the opposite of what the faculty request.
He is very sensitive about criticism. I once observed him in a meeting where a group of
staff members came and expressed serious and legitimate concerns they had about how they
were to conduct their jobs. After the group left, he suggested that they all be terminated.
For another example of how poor his communication is, when there is an opportunity for
questions, he is very skillful at talking to delay opening up the floor. For example, at the
last Town Hall meeting that was devoted to diversity, the questions did not begin until 15
minutes before the event was scheduled to end. That does not give much time for questions
or follow-up questions.
2.50 Because communication and interpersonal skills is a two-way interaction, President Jacobs’
evaluation of the receptive and collaborative component of this interaction is sorely lacking.
He expresses himself adequately.
2.51 President Jacobs seems as if he wants to communicate with faculty, but he never indicates
that he wants to be our advocate, which is disappointing. I don’t know if this is a failure of
perception (by which I mean to say that he thinks of himself as our advocate but it doesn’t
come across) or if that’s the way he genuinely feels. Either way, I truly wish that he would
see the faculty as his family and not the people he has to do battle with every day.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 3
Comments on Technical &
Professional Expertise
3.1 Does not come across as an effective leader because his motivation does not seem to be for
the improvement of the institution as a whole but for political reasons.
3.2 Alck of academic background both a hindrence, though sometimes can provide alternative
per
3.3 Seems to know how to run a hospital, but does not appear to have the same level of expertise
in running institutions of higher education.
3.4 This was probably a steep learning curve for Dr. Jacobs; he seems to be getting the hang
of academia. :) My only concern is that decisions are sometimes made that seem to be
moving against student centeredness and student learning -but these decisions may be made
by administrators below the president’s level.
3.5 Jacobs’s willingness to pronounce himself in charge of processes from tenure to curriculum
that have always been under the aegis of faculty self-governance demonstrates a disturbing
lack of understanding of the function of a university.
3.6 This man is a hospital administrator and a surgeon. He is not qualified to lead a comprehensive
university. One example of his defiance of “best practices” in administering a
metropolitan university is his absurd insistence on interviewing faculty tenure candidates.
How embarassing for this university to make national headlines because of him.
3.7 Surgeon runs university. He uses his medical training to slash and cut where HE sees it
necessary. I’ve never liked working for ortho docs...too autocratic.
3.8 Physicians believe they are gods. They can run their practices. They can run their hospitals.
Now this one believes he can run a liberal arts university. He is a demagogue and a fake.
3.9 Dr. Jacobs appears to understand medical schools and health care very well. His grasp of
more traditional academic disciplines, their function, and relevance is limited.
3.10 Dr Jacobs has created many opporunities for UT; I am sure he is learning along the way as
many non educator administrators do. Leadership is about being open and willing to push,
not what was.
8
Part 3. Comments on Technical & Professional Expertise Page 9 of 49
3.11 History is not a strength for many Americans, the president included, but an idea of what
the US academy has done in the past couple hundred years could help in where things are
moving and why we are here. “Research” under the administration’s narrow framework is
a recent addition to research-intensive universities but is not the highest priority at many
more universities (including this one...if the administration took a look at the academic
community here)
3.12 The president has consistently demonstrated a lack of understanding of the culture and
collegial operation of a full service university
3.13 trends to be attracted to ideas based on limited review and selects options not always best
suited to UT nor applied widely in higher education; needs to widen view and understanding
of problems and situation at UT in regards to ideas for reorganization, trends to favor simple
broad concepts or catch phases (such as mass customization, transformation) that have basic
appeal but lack specific objectives and outcomes
3.14 It is often said that though he lacks knowledge and expertise in university administration,
he does know how to manage a medical center. In fact, he is a product of the VA medical
system, not a typical academic medical center. He would have had the same problems he
has now, even if the merger had not occured.
3.15 persists in calling the social sciences “social studies”; doesn’t even have a terminal degree
3.16 clueless about undergraduate education. They aren’t cogs to be greased with the occasional
Stalinesque “new entity.”
3.17 When President Jacobs came on board, he I hoped that despite the fact that he was making
a significant shift by moving from a leadership position in a medical college to leading a
university, he would be successful. However, he has not had a very strong learning curve.
He has not given up his authoritarian syle of management, and he does not seem to have
learned that he needs to work with faculty rather than alienating them.
3.18 Views self as a comprehensive leader, but is only qualified to strategize and administer at
the medical level.
3.19 He sure knows how to spend it, but have seen no evidence of ability to make it for anyone
other than himself.
3.20 He appears to consider the university as an ancillary unit to the hospital.
3.21 He thinks he is an expert in the liberal arts so he doesn’t seek understanding from those
who have spent a career in the liberal arts. He is a great hospital administrator but doesn’t
understand the whole notion of “University”.
3.22 I believe Dr. Jacobs needs to open his mind a bit more in order to understand the main
campus culture of academics. Medical academics are quite different, and I don’t think he’s
quite “got” the traditional faculty culture yet or, if he does, he doesn’t particularly respect
it. And that is a problem.
3.23 Needs work on understanding how a large university culture moves and reacts and that is
is much more comprhensive then just a medical school and a hospital.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 3. Comments on Technical & Professional Expertise Page 10 of 49
3.24 The issue of presidential tenure interviews illustrates a lack of understanding of best practices
for universities. There have been multiple instances where faculty were not invited to give
input on important decisions. I believe this is because the president came from a culture
where there was very little shared governance.
3.25 From my perspective, ill-informed decisions are announced, implemented, and attempted to
put into practice without consultation of folks who might be aware of potential problems;
then, when they don’t work, we are all left to pick up the pieces and try to fix it.
3.26 I think as cardiologist who ran a 2000 student medical campus, he has shown repeatedly
that he doesn’t have the skill to run a large metropolitan university. He doesn’t appear to
understand undergraduate education. Everything is now medical -wouldn’t it be great to
see my program advertised at Savage or in the newspapers? Wouldn’t it be great to see
someone besides him and people in white coats in our pictures?
3.27 Really has little knowledge of the institution outside of the medical school
3.28 He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of knowledge of Main Campus issues, procedures
and policies. He needs to engage the faculty and work to find common ground rather than
trying to impose his will. Finding common ground is true leadership. The faculty are a
knowledge resource he is wasting by believing he knows best.
3.29 A town hall meetings, he has been asked about policies that he implement (or at least
signed off on) and he claimed to be unaware of these policies. There seems to be little
or no consideration of what is working else where or at least the Jacob’s administration is
not advertising the fact that they are following successful models in higher education. The
meeting with Arizona State may be a change in this position.
3.30 His behavior indicates that he knows very little about undergraduate education, this is an
area for improvement.
3.31 His very narrow experience and lack of desire to learn has severely limited his leadership.
3.32 Although knowledgeable about medical education at the local, state and national levels, it
continues to appear that Dr. Jacobs knowledge of the full range of higher education issues
(from the liberal arts through professional graduate education) is lacking. He seems to
assume that he is more knowledgeable than he should. This includes his knowledge of the
role and functions of non-medical faculty members and the academic mission and functions
that do not involve medical education. Any acknowledgment of the differences between
medical education and the broad range of higher education functions at UT seems to be
missing.
3.33 Has very little general knowlegs of the college of Arts and Sciences and its programs. In
addition, his knowledge of the higher education is limited.
3.34 His experience in higher education has not been in a university setting, but only with medical
schools. He has no idea what I do and little interest in learning.
3.35 Does not understand the needs and requirements of the educational process and trys to
apply theory evenly across the disciplines when in fact they are different and require othr
sound approaches to the rectify or improve the education of the specialty nor discipline.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 3. Comments on Technical & Professional Expertise Page 11 of 49
3.36 He just does not get “faculty governance” and thinks of the university with a business model
in his mind.
3.37 He is unqualified to be a university president. President of a medical college maybe, but I
don’t think he understands the role of a faculty member.
3.38 Lloyd Jacobs has little or no understanding of the issues of higher education.
3.39 The President does not appreciate the roles and needs of areas beyond the Medical College.
3.40 Demonstrates little understanding or respect for academic process and tradition. Claims to
support faculty governance but does not actually pay much attention to faculty input. Has
created a nightmare of bureaucratic paperwork and administrative roadblocks to actually
getting any work done in the trenches. Seems not to understand the burden that his policies
and rigidity place on those trying to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Does not
follow best practices of higher education administration for well-run universities; in fact,
he clearly does the opposite in many cases (e.g., tenure review process and presidential
“interviews”).
3.41 no regard for traditional academic values or standards; way too focused on the latest trend
3.42 President seems to have litter knowledge about running a University (as opposed perhaps
to a professional school). Worse yet, he seems to lack the knowledge that he might have
something to learn. He seems to make no effort to collect even basic data from appropriate
sources before making decisions. As a result, it seems that policy is constantly changing.
3.43 There is no evidence that Dr. Jacobs understands anything about PUBLIC higher education.
He frames all discussions in a business model. He does not even talk the talk much less walk
the talk about the role of higher education in a democratic society. The job of a university
President is involvement in fundraising, public relations, and attracting talented people
who can support you in advancing the mission of the institution and then giving them
the responsibility and authority to accomplish thier jobs. In both student services and
academics he does not have the staff in place who can do the job-or he has not given his
staff the authority to do the jobs that need to be done.
3.44 I can’t speak toward his knowledge of medical school adminstration, but he was clearly
unprepared for issues related to UG education and finance. Although I appreciate his efforts
to implement new and innovative ideas, this implementation was not carefully thought out
in many cases and generally led to more chaos than positive change.
3.45 His medical education is entirely inadequate to lead a university or run the university on
the “business model.” He knows so little about his faculty that he funds the wrong projects
and drives the best faculty members away form the university. Our College is losing very
good faculty due to underfunding (MUCH less than historically) and yet there is money
to funnel towards private enterprise. Private enterprise is fine but it is not subject to the
extensive review process that NSF/NIH funded research is.
3.46 Although, I believe that President Jacobs truly means well, it would probably be a good
idea if he looked at more of our peer institutions before starting new traditions here at UT.
Take, for example, the interviewing of tenure candidates. A great idea. Very exciting. A
great way for him to learn about his faculty. BUT...from what I’ve heard, he makes the
tenure candidate regurgitate their CV during the interview and learns very little that isn’t
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 3. Comments on Technical & Professional Expertise Page 12 of 49
in the dossier to begin with. Why not just read the dossier and make the decision if that is
the way of the interview anyway? Probably takes less time to scan a person’s CV than to
arrange for a 30minute interview. My personal suggestion: Meet with all the people that
he is going to approve after he has made the decision. Why bother to meet the people that
he is going to deny tenure to anyway? They aren’t the future of the university. As is, the
interview looks like an evaluation, which is probably not what he means it to be (unless he
is looking forward to the eventual lawsuit).
3.47 Dr. Jacobs has repeatedly made decisions in such a way that have shown him to lack
understanding of shared governance or willingness to listen to others who have experience
with best practices in higher education. While some of the initiatives taken during and
after the merger have raised the profile of the University in some respects, in other ways,
the climate on campus has degenerated into one of distrust and uneasiness about whether
the President regards faculty, staff and students as constituencies he is here to serve or as
employees and customers.
3.48 President Jacobs was not prepared to administer the new UT. He has tried to learn. However,
too often it appears that he tries to latch on to some trend, when it may not aplly well to
UT or we are too late to be on the cutting edge.
3.49 Hie previous experience was in leading a small medical university. He clearly has no expertise
in leading a complex and comprehensive university.
3.50 I wish that President Jacobs knew more about universities; I feel that his background
in hospital administration is helpful in some regards but not in others, particularly when
it comes to him articulating a vision for UT. This seems especially evident in his hiring
practices. I’m in the College of Arts and Sciences, and our dean has no relevant work
experience for the job, which is extremely frustrating.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 4
Comments on Problem Solving &
Decision-Making
4.1 Solutions to some problems have shown an incomplete understanding of the real problem.
4.2 Often unclear at what levels are being made. Important decision sometimes appears left to
subordinates when convenient, i.e. out-of my hands approach.
4.3 Tends to make decisions impulsively. Consults only with a small inner circle. Seems to make
precipitous decisions that result in negative reactions, especially from faculty and staff.
4.4 Micromanagement style causes problems for the academic integrity of the institution. Top
down management style is not appropriate for a comprehensive university.
4.5 Decisions seem to be guided to advance the medical school and hospital at whatever cost to
the other academic units and programs and especially at great cost to the students. Decision
making style is authoritarian rather than engaging in productive dialogue. Delegation is
often to others with similar aurthoritarian style (Bill Logie)
4.6 He is “the Decider.” That’s his decision-making skill. His solution to all crises is to blame
the faculty, blame the union, and attempt to destroy both.
4.7 Problem with communcation style. Dr. Jacobs appears to offer a “first draft” for faculty
to react to; this backfires. When Dr. Jacobs changes his original position from the “ideas
through out for discussion,” he is perceived as backing down and “losing.” If he didn’t
change from his original position, that would be a problem, too. Allowing faculty or others
to create the “draft for discussion” would leave him open to less criticism.
4.8 The literature is replete with how poor an authoritarian model of leadership is at accomplishing
worthwhile problem-solving & decision-making compared with a democratic model of
leadership...and history shows that academia has increasingly moved towards a democratic
model over the past couple hundred years-fighting this and using an ill-conceived style of
leadership is counterproductive to the growth and development of this institution.
4.9 All too often jumps onto the most recent idea or “fad” without considering the options,
alternatives and implications for situation at UT
4.10 cuts back on student services yet awards raises to smarmy administrators
13
Part 4. Comments on Problem Solving & Decision-Making Page 14 of 49
4.11 The decisions they make (central administration), benefit them first and foremost (such as
protecting their bonuses first in a time of economic downturn) -then students -then faculty
-then staff (laying off the lowest paid and most unprotected
4.12 While I believe that President Jacobs uses effective decision-making strategies, he does not
always convey that in announcing his decisions –I think that his persona is that of being
rigid & biased toward certain units on campus (i.e. “clinical enterprise”) . . . too militarylike
in his demeanor. Maybe a better approach to announcing decisions would be to briefly
state the major viable options/solutions considered & the merits that made the selected one
better than the others.
4.13 Keen on trivia like mission statement and logo.
4.14 Quick to speak, quick to judge, slow on attitude change.
4.15 Cant and rhetoric by second rate speechwriters.
4.16 It would be helpful to be a bit more participative with some decisions. I realize that as the
President, there are many decisions that we expect him to make on his own. However, he
needs to realize that some decisions affect faculty and staff so directly that without at least
hearing their perspectives, he is setting himself up for more resistance than he needs to.
4.17 Really needs to include more people in the process then just the few adminstrators around
him.
4.18 I think the President is a quick decisionmaker who does not settle for the first solution;
however, often, he is frequently guilty of using one approach to decision-making: his.
4.19 President is consistently a micro manager. Seems to hire intelligent, qualified people only to
make decisions by himself with little to know input from the people affected. Deans barely
seem to have any power or authority. Seems to make a decision and then after he gets
input seeks to correct or change his course of action. No longer involves faculty in decision
making. No shared governance. If groups don’t do what he wants, he appears to threaten
them.
4.20 At times there is no transparency in the decision making process with the group that is
effected by the decision. Also, there is little effort to ask for their concerns or ideas re: an
issues
4.21 Does not involve faculty in final decisions
4.22 I have no confidence that President Jacobs and his staff can implement a logical plan to
lead this University.
4.23 I think the major concern here is over the decision-making process. The decision-making
process is a failure even though it might on occasion yield a positive result. Faculty and
staff are treated as children who may be consulted but there concerns are immediately
dismissed. Faculty are consulted so as to legitimate decisions that have already been made
so that when faculty complaint their complaints are dismissed because faculty were part of
the rigged process that produced President Jacob’s team’s desired outcome.
4.24 How about engaging the members of the university community? Meet with the staff, engage
with the faculty, attend student club functions,not just athletic contests.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 4. Comments on Problem Solving & Decision-Making Page 15 of 49
4.25 His knowledge is not sufficient to reach the best solution.
4.26 Reserves decision-making to inner circle of older, white male upper-level administrators–all
of whom appear to be aloof and relatively clueless as to what is really happening in the
University.
4.27 The President seems to involve himself too much in the day-to-day decisions of his subordinates,
especially the Provosts and Deans. It appears that there is a lack of trust on his
part of these central decision-makers. The constant rhetoric about “transformative change”
seems to have become a trite phrase without substance or implementation. And, it strongly
appears that this is change for change’s sake. Appeals to generalities about the human
condition are no longer sufficient to guide this change.
4.28 his contineous lack of understanding of the faculty and arbitrary decision will lead to more
problems.
4.29 He seems to have created more problems than he has solved. I have seen little evidence that
he can solve our problems.
4.30 Needs to trust deans and department heads to manage. Some decisions cause unintended
negative consequences that don’t agree with the stated goals. For example, slow start up
funds caused loss of grant funds and hurt the university’s reputation. Slow budget decisions
cause confusion.
4.31 His way or the highway!!!!!
4.32 He does not seek concensus but bulls ahead with his ideas no matter how uninformed or
disruptive they may be to the mission.
4.33 Too dictatorial.
4.34 Decision making at a University involves input from all interested parties. Jacobs does not
seek any input other than rubber stamp statements.
4.35 Does not effectively integrate opinions of others in decisions.
4.36 Micromanages everything. Does not resolve problems in effective ways, simply “blows things
up” without understanding or resolving the underlying issues. Does not allow his subordinates
to make decisions. Demands final decision review/veto. Sends a message of distrust
to many who work for him.
4.37 The President has put in place people in the administration that he supposedly trusts to
make decisions. Although others may not have agreed with these decisions these people were
chosen by the President. Despite this, however, he seems unwilling to delegate authority to
make even simple decisions. As a result, it is almost impossible to get even simple tasks done
in anything approaching a timely manner. Moreover, the people closest to the situation,
with the most information, are not the ones make the decisions.
4.38 No direct knowledge of Dr. Jacob’s decision making style. However, there is no indication
that he is able to delegate any decision making. In the academic area of main campus
colleges, the fact that he has not been able to hire or even appoint a dean with even minimal
understanding of the job for the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Education
demonstrates over-involvement in the Provost ??s job.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 4. Comments on Problem Solving & Decision-Making Page 16 of 49
4.39 Again, many decisions at UT are reactive not proactive. I give the same comment for all
administrators.
4.40 We don’t know on May 3 what our budget for incoming graduate students and hiring new
instructors. The dean of our College seems to have no power at all. She probably has to
get the president’s signature for paper clips.
4.41 A similar theme here: he needs to take more time getting input from people before making
sweeping decisions. Take the furloughs. Given the opportunity and handled appropriately,
Jacobs could have asked for faculty VOLUNTEERS to take a couple of furlough days. Other
than the bonus issue, I bet he would have gotten a lot of volunteers. I would have been one
of them. Not anymore. Now he’s going to have to do it through the AAUP as far as I’m
concerned because he burned that bridge with me. Also, maybe he could have considered
how hard the furloughs are going to hit the staff that only make 40k a year. They should
have been exempt...even if that means one more day off for the faculty. So be it.
4.42 Dr. Jacobs has repeatedly had to back off from bad decisions because he has not listened
to others. He throws out ideas and decisions without any apparent intent to follow through
with integrity and shared planning.
4.43 The focus of the president’s decision making is on speed. He insists that problems have
quick answers, which often means that he does not take the time to fully investigate the
problem. For example, the furlough policy. Because of the speed which this issue went to
the board, there was a lack of input from others. As a result, the president embarrassed
himself in front of the Faculty Senate by not realizing that 9-month contract faculty do not
receive paid vacation days. Consultation with groups who would be impacted by such a
policy would have made this important point clear to him. But because he seems to think
the university moves too slowly, he makes decisions without adequate consultation, and
makes mistakes as a result.
4.44 Employa a top-down approach in which units are informed of strategic decisions only after
the decisions are made.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 5
Comments on Responsibility &
Accountability
5.1 Generally acts in a professional manner, decision sometimes reversed, or alternate decisions
followed through.
5.2 Sometimes it feels like decisions are made without the input of people who would be directly
affected by those decisions; often time it seems like there is little information about why
decisions were made (especially the hard ones that have a huge impact on faculty, staff,
students, other learners, and guests). I know that this may not be possible, but it is
frustrating.
5.3 See the infamous “under the bus” memo.
5.4 Lots of smoke and mirrors. Defensiveness and unprofessional behavior was apparent to the
public when he was interviewed on Channel 13 last fall about the administrative bonuses,
especially when asked if he would give back his bonus. How embarassing for me as a faculty
member.
5.5 This is the guy who said that we needed to pay him more money to keep him on the job
and in competition with other universities. So, go somewhere else, pal.
5.6 What accountability? Apparently he and his god have a thing going, but I’ve never seen
the paperwork.
5.7 Although criticism is accepted and acknowledged, it does not appear to be acted upon.
5.8 Too much micro-management –hires haven’t gone through in a timely fashion –so that we
lose opportunties for hiring excellent faculty.
5.9 Failure to see/note leadership problems lends to other problems
5.10 Seems unaware of some of the bonehead things done by his staff.
5.11 uses disabled plate to open UH south west door.
5.12 In the past 18 months, Dr. Jacobs’ has authorized significant staff layoffs and is pushing
for faculty furloughs while accepting and handing out $1.5 million in salary/“performance”
bonuses to top administrators. He claims we are under a “financial crisis”, but his salary
as well as those of other top adiministrators keep increasing at a rate far exceeding those of
17
Part 5. Comments on Responsibility & Accountability Page 18 of 49
the remainder of the university community. This action is neither responsible nor does it
resemble the slightest act of accountability.
5.13 Again protecting their bonuses because “that’s the way you keep talent” is a slap in the
face to the talented persons “choosing” to complete their careers at UT. If the President
would have donated 10% of his bonus to help bail out the university, I’m sure faculty would
have agreed to some furlough days...but unfortunately attitude reflects leadership...it has
changed into a place where everyone is ’out to get theirs’ and not volunteering to ’give’ to
help others.
5.14 BOT are supposed to keep a watch on him. Suckup trustees benefit no one. Just think of
General Motors.
5.15 Appears defensive when a leader needs to put aside personal attributions and perceptions
for the common good.
5.16 Blames faculty, economy, organizational culture–the universal excuse.
5.17 His tenure interviews are an example of his refusal to recognize the expertise of faculty who
have reviewed candidate dossiers.His attitude towards his own personal compensation is
immoral, given the economic times. Laying off staff while continuing to draw the salary and
bonuses even as he insists on his own market value–all this is irresponsible and immoral.
5.18 This is hard. I think he receives feedback from others gracefully but he does it after he tries
to force a decision. I think it is really hard for Dr. Jacobs to admit he is wrong and back
down.
5.19 Seems to treat adminstrators as valued members of the university and faculty as second
class citizens.
5.20 He takes responsibility for his decisions and their outcomes.
5.21 Can be very defensive. Makes unprofessional comments that expose his lack of knowledge
and skill in doing his job. Again, seems to hire qualified people who don’t have authority.
Then many of these qualified people leave the university -for example the past chair of
pediatrics. Behavior is inconsistent with what he is saying.
5.22 If he would drop his arrogance and condescending attitude, it would be a step in the right
direction.
5.23 This is most obvious when examining the role of the current provosts–in light of the historical
role of the Provost’s office.
5.24 In some ways meets expectations -is almost always professional, but he does need improvement
in many areas in this category. He has not produced an effective chain of command,
at least for the main campus.
5.25 Appears to show a lack of concern for faculty and for those who disagree with him
5.26 He blames the faculty or previous administrations for all failures.
5.27 He is especially bad on diversity and has made cringeworthy statements in public on several
occasions. His choice of Larry Burns, a wealthy white male, as the diversity point person is
an example of his tin ear.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 5. Comments on Responsibility & Accountability Page 19 of 49
5.28 It is a disgrace that notices of job layoffs etc always come out late on Friday afternoons.
How did he and Provost Haggett keep their jobs after their comments about throwing Dr.
Lee ’under the bus’? Why have they sat on not hiring an A & S dean capable of running
the college?
5.29 Jacobs is very unprofessional. There is no accountability regarding his performance.
5.30 Gets defensive when questioned about decisions. Is not transparent about reasons or process.
Does not give authority to those he tasks to accomplish things; instead, he demands that
they do things exactly the way he wants it done, rather than allowing them to do things in
the way they find best.
5.31 Even when confronted with overwhelming evidence of an error the President seems unable
to admit to making a mistake and adjusting his course. This seems to have given rise to
quite a bit of animosity on campus and a belief that the President ??s first concern is his
image and ego and not the welfare of the University of Toledo.
5.32 Dr. Jacobs does address problems in a timely way
5.33 My comments above speak directly to this area. Also by bringing in deans who know nothing
about the jobs at going market rate salaries he has cost us a great deal of money. The deans
are making the salaries and then have to bring in faculty members as associate deans and
department chairs to actually get the jobs done. Not only is this costly, it takes more and
more faculty out of the classroom leaving a void in our instructional programs.
5.34 He is not afraid to put himself out there and does not shy away from criticism, he certainly
deserves credit for this.
5.35 Threw the former dean of A&S under the bus. Jacobs hired Li and within a year the
University of Toledo is in all the Education circulars for throwing a dean under the bus.
Jacobs tried to blame the faculty of A&S for the problem and tried to hide his error by
conducting an expensive and ineffectual review of the College.
5.36 I would not call Dr. Jacobs impact on the reputation of the University negative in the sense
of being inappropriate, but it has certainly put UT in the national spotlight as a place to
be wary of in terms of its commitments to scholarship, respect for best practices, and the
comprehensive mission we claim to promote.
5.37 I agree with the first sentence but not the 2nd. I have seen President Jacobs dismiss faculty
concerns based on their discipline.
5.38 There have been numerous instances where administrators made poor decisions and they
were not held accountable. For example, the hiring of the Arts and Sciences dean. It was
clear to almost everyone how poor this decision was, yet he and the provost refused to deal
with the issue. Instead, they privately exchanged messages that indicated they agreed that
he should be removed. Both he and the provost should have been held accountable for the
decision to hire this person, and should have publically backed the efforts by the college to
have him removed. Instead, both of them placed the blame for the problem on the faculty of
the college rather than accept it themselves. This mistake continues to cost the university.
At a time when people are losing their jobs because of a tight budget, the former dean
continues to collect a hefty paycheck in a position that contributes little to the institution.
We cannot afford to make such errors, and we cannot afford letting administrators who
make them dodge their responsibility for them.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 5. Comments on Responsibility & Accountability Page 20 of 49
5.39 If a crucial component of “meets expectations” is “follow through,” then I feel that President
Jacobs needs to work on this. I feel that the administration grasps frantically for new
language, paradigms, and directions every semester, switching from one thing to the next at
a hectic pace without ever really following through. Departments are constantly being told
to reimagine themselves–to identify their vision and to create strategic plans, for instance–
and then the administration totally ignores what they say. This is very stressful for faculty!
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 6
Comments on Planning & Organizing
6.1 Develops strategic plans, with limited to moderate buy-in. Stake-holders maybe involved in
planning, though not necessarily implementation of similar plan.
6.2 I would love to rate this as “exceeds expectations,” but this president falls down in the area
incorporating input from a wide-range of individuals and getting their buy-in. He tends to
be selective and overly relies on a small “kitchen cabinet” of advisors.
6.3 Top down methods are not appropriate for a comprehensive university.
6.4 Engages in collaboration, but in a superficial way -does not listen well
6.5 Doesn’t take long to plan strategically when it involves one strike of a keyboard. “Delete”
“Delete” “Delete” —bang go all the staff —after all, eliminating jobs is as easy as erasing a
spelling error. Ironic given the secretarial nature of some of these jobs.
6.6 Appears to be soliciting input for strategic plan.
6.7 Perceives the importance of the macro view, but understands the micro too.
6.8 As a faculty member, I am confused as to what this university’s mission and strategic
planning are focused on-it seems like any and everything which is scattered and not focusing/
harnessing the faculties talents and priorities.
6.9 The strategic planning efforst on this campus have been wholly unsuccessful. There is NO
obvious link between strategic planning and support. The president (and senior administrators)
seem to have their own agenda....and that is what gets promoted.
6.10 key concern is setting realistic and attainable goals and working with broader UT community
to achieve these; on many decisions (interviewing tenure track faculty) does not consult or
consider potential issues or implications with such decisions.
6.11 The post-merger strategies, including the recent changes proposed in the “relevant university”,
have been faulty, and damaging to both the “main campus” and the “health-science
campus”. The strategies seem to be designed to keep the senior leadership employed.
6.12 makes great plans yet can’t even keep the campus clean. The same wad of gum has been
on the UH stair banister for the past 3 years.
21
Part 6. Comments on Planning & Organizing Page 22 of 49
6.13 Dr. Jacobs has been ineffective at convincing most of my colleagues that the widesweeping
changes to the college structure (i.e. creation of new schools, combining departments, etc.)
is actually necessary. In fact, he has actually created quite a lot of animosity between
departments with this “transformational” vision. He has yet to establish that this effort is
financially sustainable.
6.14 A cycle has begun of trying to push faculty to teach more (because we don’t work hard
enough) then when that doesn’t work -let’s make faculty do more research and violate the
union contract by saying faculty need to be more “research active” and when that didn’t
work they said ’well let’s make them do more service“ -After I’ve accused you of not working
hard enough -does anyone want to volunteer to be on accreditation committees etc...?”. I
think he is getting his direction on this from the Board of Trustees who may be made up of
business people who understand that to work you must be in a particular office or else you’re
not working. The Board and the President seem over preoccupied making sure people clock
in hours instead of making sure people have the resources they need to be as productive as
possible.
6.15 Apparently Jacobs’ big strategic dream is to take us back to the trade school envisioned by
Jesup Scott.
6.16 Uses dictatorial model instead of inclusive model; actions, decisions, and assumptions too
governed by BOT.
6.17 Excels in pie in the sky
6.18 Dr. Jacobs is blinded by short-term goals. He is unable to determine or consider unintended,
long-term consequences to his poorly-conceived model of higher education.
6.19 His difficulty is in creating a shared vision. Working with faculty would be so much more
productive than working to convince them that he is right.
6.20 Same issue he appears to listen to his people and not all the stakeholders
6.21 His communication issues impact his strategic planning initiatives. He has priorities that
will be given attention whether or not they are shared by the vast majority of the university
community.
6.22 Based on our current strategic plan -doesn’t really appear to understand strategic planning
at all. Makes decisions that improves the condition of the medical school while others
suffer. There is no way to even guess what’s important to UT by looking at the dimensions
document. You could tell more from reading my grocery list.
6.23 The outcome is predetermined a top 100 medical community. We are merely talking about
how to achieve that outcome. The process of choosing that goal was not an open process
nor strategic. The Jacob’s administration seems to want to create a Toledo Institute of
Technology. IF that is the goal then fine, but let’s be honest about it and tell the none
science/technology departments how they fit into these goals. But, don’t forget that MIT
has world class departments in the social sciences and humanities. He cannot build a national
institution much less a world class institution on just the sciences. But, he may be able to
build a parochial Northwest Ohio technical college on such a foundation.
6.24 He attempts to get buy-in, but is unaware that his efforts are doomed by his actions which
make clear he has no need for collaboration, only obedience.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 6. Comments on Planning & Organizing Page 23 of 49
6.25 There are two answers to this statement. One would be that the president is very successful
in forwarding his own agenda–this is due to his inability to see the value of input from
others. The second answer is that a strategic plan of bettering the University is impossible
when it is run by individuals who refuse to accept the University for what it is and move
forward in improving its future within these realistic parameters.
6.26 It is not at all clear how the strategic plan “Directions 2008” guided any specific decision
at the presidential-level.
6.27 Strategic planning for programs are not completely shared with faculty. And when it does,
faculty views are dismissed.
6.28 He’s created a plan that leaves out most of the university. He essentially has said we just
don’t have a future.
6.29 Wants more research dollars, but actions do not support this outcome.
6.30 He has good ideas but he often alienates the faculty and students so nothing can come of
his ideas.
6.31 If by strategic you mean have they effectively destroyed A & S through a ineffective hires,
delayed highers, and bringing on a kindly elder lady who has been incredibly ineffective
(except for helping Chemistry), then their strategic planning has been successful. What
happened to responsibility managed budgeting? My guess is that department and colleges
who bring in the money or have a positive balance are not the onces that President Jacobs
wants to support.
6.32 His strategic planning involves him making proclamations about what the University of
Toledo will do.
6.33 Does not involve stakeholders enough.
6.34 Does not seem to listen to ideas or strategies of others. Pays consultants to give answers
that simple consultation with people at UT could have given. Does not accept concepts
that do not fit into his view of what should be done. Does not listen.
6.35 not concerned with the fallout from his actions on basic support functions that enable the
university to carry out day to day operations
6.36 The President is very clear that he is the leader of the University and should be making
all decisions. One of the greatest responsibilities of a leader is to convince others of his/her
strategy. Not only is the President unsuccessful at this task; he seems to show little interest
in even attempting to bring others on board. Historically, it seems that brute force and
bullying can work in the short run but in the long run these strategies can be disastrous.
6.37 Faculty have not been involved in any meaningful way in the planning process either in the
first version or the current re-alignment. Faculty Senate has not endorsed nor been officially
involved in either planning process. There is no buy in by critical stakeholders.
6.38 This university needs a long-term, coherent strategic and financial plan. Not one that just
serves to make a few headlines and will ultimately be ignored by the next administration.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 6. Comments on Planning & Organizing Page 24 of 49
6.39 My opinion is that my Department can no longer carry on with its programs because of
inadequate staffing and funding. We are driving away good students and faculty both and
there is no hope of a turnaround because we have no direction coming from the president’s
office.
6.40 Constant awarding of bonuses to administative officials under the banner of requirement to
reward such individuals to retain “the best and the brightest”, While leaving the faculty
and staff to struggle with cutbacks and limited resources.
6.41 Well, seems like every year we are working on a new strategic plan. The plan for 3 years
ago is no longer good so we are revising it this semester, I believe. I guess that makes us
really good at planning, but really poor at ever executing anything. How many consecutive
strategic plans have we made in the last 2 decades?
6.42 Dr. Jacobs does not engage in a collaborative manner. While the strategic planning committee
consists of over one hundred people, the more important level of participation and
engagement at a university is in the daily processes of communicating the reasons for priorities
and planning and listening and RESPONDING to feedback (rather than ignoring
it).
6.43 None of the choice actually fit. President Jacobs does attempt to involve others. However,
it is always the people that will agree with what it wants to do. Then he says he has had
input.
6.44 The present strategic planning effort is a case in point. Important decisions are being made
about the future of the institution, and there is no campus-wide effort to gain input into
the plan.
6.45 Does not involve the University stakeholders in strategic planning but makes unilateral
decisions.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 7
Comments on Leadership
7.1 Leadership in the trenches has not been visible if he has been attempting it.
7.2 Shows vision, though not necessarily the vision expected of a University leader. Does not
understand the relatives role of the President/Provost/APT committee in the 6-year long
tenure process.
7.3 I am especially disappointed in the hiring practices of this president. His administrative
selections have ranged from the inept to the unethical. There are too many interim appointments
that have been allowed to go unfilled for too long.
7.4 Leadership is by fear and intimidation.
7.5 Takes leadership in developing a joint medical/professional/liberal arts institution. But,
tends not to see the importance of collaboration between humanities, fine arts, and health
-sees more of a bench science focus.
7.6 You need to listen much more carefully to be an effective leader. Perhaps a hearing aid?
And perhaps you ought to shut up once in a while when others are talking? I’ve never seen
the man engaged in active listening skills. He’s always thinking of what he’s going to say...
7.7 Only over a cliff.
7.8 Provides leadership, but needs to communicate more effectively so that faculty are not left
in the dark and unsure what is going on.
7.9 Genuinely appeciate Dr Jacob’s courage to take on tough tasks
7.10 Jacob’s authoritarian style of leadership may be okay in a private corporation but is counterproductive
and inept in academia-others have tried and failed with this style. Seeking
the counsel of faculty, getting buy-in, and moving forward (in that order) is needed-being
an effective administrator/leading is a separate skill set than being a faculty member. This
simple reality does not appear to have been learnt/developed.
7.11 I am sure that this well educated man is sicere in believing that he is the best for this job.
But he lacks the ability to admit failure—-a common characteristic of leaders who have
failed doing their assigned jobs.
7.12 micro-manages. He is expected to be in the public eye raising funds...why is his car in the
parking lot day after day.
25
Part 7. Comments on Leadership Page 26 of 49
7.13 Dr. Jacobs shows interest leaving a big mark in his wake, but little else. What leader fires
employees and then waves his big bonus in their face two weeks later?
7.14 The President has an inability to connect with faculty -at least on the main campus. His
suit, his power, his heavy handed leadership style phases no one over here. People won’t
jump to his command no matter what he says or does until they respect him. Respect is
earned through trust and positive leadership
7.15 Blowhard.
7.16 President Jacob needs to liaison with faculty and students to learn from them rather than
attempting to impose his own vision on the university.
7.17 See above. Much more successful on Health Science Campus—true area of expertise.
7.18 Puffery. Arrogance.
7.19 Dr. Jacobs did not receive the job of president as the result of a search in which he would
have competed against other qualified candidates. Being appointed to a job does not make
one a leader.
7.20 He is a good PR man. He has the ability to sell his vision outside of UT to the town,
state leaders etc. I wish he would do this more. But his ability to work with faculty is
disappointing.
7.21 I feel he is leading only part of the university not the entire UT community.
7.22 Dr. Jacobs has demonstrated strong leadership in all areas of his presidency.
7.23 He demonstrates motivation and leadership; however, I think he does not have a clear
understanding of how university communities require collaboration and shared investment
in strategic decisions.
7.24 There’s a lot of talk about this, but I don’t see it in practice, frankly. Loyalty seems more
important than critical thinking and discussion.
7.25 Communication with faculty seems a bit tense and it would be better to spend more time
communicating directly to faculty -in person. Too many important policy annoucnements
were made in the Blade or on a web site, rather than directly to stakeholders.
7.26 Doesn’t really seem to have skills in leadership at all. Seems like someone who was in the
right place at the right time. Morale at UT is the lowest it’s been since I’ve been here (13
years). Takes a bonus, lays people off, tells the rest of us to do more with less without
providing that as an example. Students are suffering as a result -faculty do what they’re
paid for -not much more. Insults every employee here when repeatedly says that he’s worth
a lot more than he’s being paid. We’re not???
7.27 He has lost the confidence of the employees of the University. Morale has never been lower.
The lack of accountability of the senior leadership team is astounding. How can one lead
when lower level employees continue to be sacrificed for the bonuses/promotions of the
President and the senior leadership team. The senior leadership team needs to share in the
pain of the budget issues facing the university-this would show some leadership.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 7. Comments on Leadership Page 27 of 49
7.28 President Jacobs reminds me of individuals in leadership for the first time who try to lead
by pushing or barking orders. Leadership is by example, by sacrifice, by motivating subordinates,
by respect, and by recognizing the best in others and using that to achieve goals.
7.29 None of these choices is appropriate. He “leads” in a legal and administrative sense, but
not effectively. This is especially true with respect to faculty and staff. He does not inspire
confidence or a believable intention to want serious consultation. In a different vein, his
public presentations are not the quality we expect for the leader of a major university. He
tries, but is not successful. Perhaps some training in public speaking would help.
7.30 Has built an atmosphere of paranoia among employees (Vik Kapoor pales in comparison to
the Jacobs’ autocratic environment). Although the president has created a Captain Integrity
“Big Brother is watching you” atmosphere, it is clear those guidelines do not hold for the
upper administration.
7.31 Dr. Jacobs seems to micromanage rather than lead. This exhibits itself in the dependency
of Dr. Haggett (I don’t know enough about Dr. Gold) on direction and consultation with
Dr. Jacobs.
7.32 A form of dictatorship/totalatarian
7.33 He lacks the ability to communicate or any understanding as to how to get “buy-in” from
the faculty. Frankly he doesn’t seem to care if we care or not.
7.34 President should fundraise and not micromanage.
7.35 He has never internalized the fact that he came to the presidency through the back door. We
were denied the process of a national search yet he assumed no humility about his elevation
and began dictating from day one with little notion of the impact on the morale of faculty
and students–who are the soul of the institution (as opposed to the BOT or administration).
7.36 A lot of lip service and diversion of money to the medical campus.
7.37 His hostile and aggressive style has alienated virtually all of the faculty, staff and students.
7.38 Gives no reason for anyone to want to follow. Provides no inspiration, only threats. Ignores
significant problems when they are not in areas he cares about, even if they are critical to
the university.
7.39 Very low faculty morale
7.40 leads by fiat
7.41 Punishment is not a leadership style nor does it facilitate learning. Dr. Jacobs’ leadership
is authoritarian and undemocratic.
7.42 Many major failures in this area. Hiring a A&S dean that was sacked within 1 1/2 years?
Administrator bonuses while staff are being laid off? Hiring an interim dean for the College
of Ed w/o any background in education? Chasing off a very talented provost? I’m still
amazed he lasted this long. Clearly the BOT has some leadership issues to deal with as
well.
7.43 His leadership involves giving taxpayer dollars intended for the university to local businesses
who are not subject to review.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 7. Comments on Leadership Page 28 of 49
7.44 Dr. Jacobs is not a good leader or role model for following through and accomplishing goals.
I do not give him credit for what has been successful in the merger.
7.45 Does not seem interested in leading ALL of the university.
7.46 I would not say that he does not lead. I would rather say that his style is to bully.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 8
Comments on Program Management
8.1 See #2 above.
8.2 Struggled between meets expectations and needs improvement
8.3 Too many examples of saying one thing and doing another, reneging on promises, and
making decisions that seem deliberately designed to provoke and cast an ill light on the
faculty.
8.4 Biggest ethical conflict is to have the dean of the medical school serve as provost for other
colleges. Other concerns are associated with the UT physicians and the financial information
associated with the private group and the president’s relationship with the group. Concerns
that UT physicians take 100faculty and staff, where other providers accept a discounted
amount. Then, the president receives money from the UT physicians. There are ethical
concerns in such a financial arrangement.
8.5 What ethics? Oh, you mean the one that gives hundred of thousands of bonuses to his
chrony administrators and slashes CWA positions at Christmastime? Oh yeah, those ethics.
Way to go Jacobs. You’ll wear the chain you forged in life me thinks.
8.6 Favoritism is the problem. Bonuses as part of contracts, hiring and re-hiring friends and
relatives, and, of course, the perceived favoritism shown to the college of medicine are
problems. I think Dr. Jacobs is an ethical person with integrity, but “perception of conflict
of interest” continues to undermine trust.
8.7 Jacobs would do well with remediation in this area (Note: I have hope that he even could
meet this professional tenet that his own medical profession thought was an imperative of
physicians). Ethics/integrity seem an oxymoron with the actions of Jacobs and the current
administration.
8.8 The president’s involvement in the “bonus” issue last year, and his handling of the issue of
interviewing faculty who were being evaluated for tenure clearly demonstrates the fact that
he does not care how he is viewed by the faculty/staff. In my opinion, his handling of the
bonus issue was the worst affront to faculty morale that I have witnessed during my thirty
years in higher education.
8.9 President Jacobs appears all to often to make rash decisions (administrative bonuses, tenure
track faculty interviews, dismissal of staff) without a measured and full consideration of the
long term and public implications of such decisions, and perhaps without full consultation
(including legal counsel)
29
Part 8. Comments on Program Management Page 30 of 49
8.10 In a public university, persistent neglect of duty is unethical conduct.
8.11 really believes that the faculty is his “enemy.”
8.12 See comments #4 and #6. Arrogance has made him many detractors here.
8.13 Already said -keeping his bonus when other -dedicated others -lose their jobs is heartless,
cruel, and cold. He could have and should have made a gesture of giving back a small
amount of his bonus.
8.14 Rudeness and dictatorial style can embarrass university and mask his abilities. There are
true costs to always “winning”...
8.15 Hires buddies, cronies, lies.
8.16 His known nepotism (his own brother-in-law) is a prime example of this. Additionally, his
behavior, attitude and treatment of faculty around the roundtable issue demonstrate his
punitive attitude towards those who disagree with his decisions.
8.17 I don’t think he is unethical but the image that continues to flow from his office is that if
you are not part of the group that came over from the medical school with him then you
are not on his team. Therefore -it is difficult to trust what he says at times.
8.18 A very shifty character. Gives the impression he is only interested in what UT can do for
him, not interested in the overall good of the university. Not to be trusted. Input solicited
from various constituencies seems to be ignored fostering the belief that the president has
already made decisions before asking for input, that solicitation of input being only for
“show.”
8.19 I think the President is highly ethical and honest. I don’t think any of his “shortcomings”
as I see them, are malicious or the result of poor ethics.
8.20 There is no transparency in decision making. Sometimes I get the impression he thinks
things up as he goes along. He publicly lied -about personnel issues especially. Tells public
he has sought input on decisions and hasn’t. Shows poor character in saying he is paid
under market value when he is laying people off. He doesn’t have a market value as he was
appointed to the position and didn’t apply for it nor has he gotten offers to go elsewhere.
8.21 The President has consistently exhibited an inability to promote trust. He is disingenuious
n his interactions with faculty. In my interactions with the public I have found that he is
widely regarded as a poor communicator, self-serving and a profoundly bad leader.
8.22 The appearance of the senior leadership team lining their pockets with bonuses does not
give any confidence in the ethics and integrity of the President.
8.23 A president with so little loyalty to the institution that the he must be paid a retention
bonus to stay is probably the wrong man to lead an institution that is requiring sacrifice
from his subordinates. At least, he could have followed the example of other university
presidents and given the money back to the school. President Jacobs has strong rhetorical
goals, but the goals he sets for his own evaluation and retention tend to be low, easily
achievable, and even then he fails to achieve them so the goal post is moved to a more
convenient level. The treatment of the deans who have been terminated or non-renewed
has been unprofessional, the treatment of the faculty in how and when they were informed
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 8. Comments on Program Management Page 31 of 49
of these changes in leadership shows a total disregard for the role of faculty and shared
governance, especially nontenured faculty for whom a change in dean is of major concern.
Finally, it does not say much for the PERCEPTION of integrity when there are tenured
full-professors who refuse to complete the survey because they fear retaliation and do not
believe that this survey is really anonymous. This shows an institutional culture of fear.
8.24 Doesn’t appear to embrace opportunities for improvement, exhibits arrogance when challenged
or just questioned.
8.25 To state it simply, he is not trustworthy. He does not inspire integrity in this administrative
staff.
8.26 I raise no issues with the issue of Dr. Jacobs’ ethics. Lack of openness and transparency in
decision, however, is lacking, and there appears to be significant favoritism paid to Medical
Campus personnel and interests.
8.27 Difficult to tell. I have suspicions about the way he moves money around but since we can’t
really see the whole budget the way we used to, it is tough to tell.
8.28 Speak the honest speak and don’t circumvent the truth or supplant a lie as the truth.
8.29 Stealing from the main campus to support the medical campus, it’s quite transparent.
8.30 Jacobs has no ethics or integrity.
8.31 Is too autocratic when making decisions.
8.32 It seems to be more important to the President to ??show who is boss ?? than to get the job
done. The situation with the A & S dean (digging in when given evidence of problems with
competency) exemplifies this attitude but so does the amount of turnover that seems to
result from any difference of opinion with Jacobs. The University can barely function with
all the ??interims ?? and ?? actings ?? (not to mention people in permanent positions with
no history or experience and with no one around to provide it) ?? growing and flourishing
is completely out of the question.
8.33 Authoritarian-power of position
8.34 My answer relates to Q7 on leadership. A number of questionable decisions make me
question his character in this regard.
8.35 The word transparency in this description really got to me. I don’t see there being any level
of transparency related to the Jacobs administration. In fact, I would use the word opaque.
8.36 I lost what little respect I had for the president when he and his direct reports all took
hefty pay raises last June when many people were losing their jobs. This destroyed morale,
and led many to question the dedication of the senior leadership to the institution. How
dedicated can such people be when they have to receive longevity bonuses just to stay? If
you have to receive a bonus just to stay, you should be shown the door. For the rest of
us, this institution is our family and our life. We work here because we love it. Yet when
we reach a milestone in our employment, not only don’t we get a longevity bonus, we are
not even recognized in a reception or receive a cheap pin. The president seems to think
that the university should be proud to have him as their leader, instead of the other way
around. He should be proud to be our leader. As an example of how little his thinks of
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 8. Comments on Program Management Page 32 of 49
the pre-merger UT, I once heard him tell the reception that honored outstanding faculty
teachers and researchers that he had recently met with the UT alumni from New York and
told them that they could get out their diplomas from storage again and hang them on the
wall because they could once again be proud of the institution. He told this to a gathering
of faculty who had made their careers teaching at the institution that he seemed to think
was an embarrassment.
8.37 His rationale for interviewing faculty who were up for tenure this year was problematic.
He took no feedback from faculty. He appoints people to positions of authority (e.g., A&S
Dean, Education Dean) who he has associations with but who have no ability or training
for an administrative position in a university. He wants to make all decisions himself.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 9
Comments on Human Capital
Management
9.1 States the importance of recruitment and retention, but does not appear back this up with
resources.
9.2 I believe that this president has behaved in ways that have caused good people to leave UT
and has caused others to forego considering UT as a place they would like to work.
9.3 The university remains an attractive place to work. But Jacobs has undermined that attractiveness
by making faculty continually dubious about the future of the institution.
9.4 Many excellent faculty members have not been retained because of p roblems caused by the
president.
9.5 Does not listen collaboratively, or truly engage in dialogue with faculty.
9.6 He sees humans only as a liability, or more to the point “this would be a great place to work
if only we didn’t have faculty!”
9.7 The loss of staff has been a real concern, and has hurt morale badly.
9.8 Although some decisions are inevitable, the choice to lay off many individuals while providing
raises to others is often interpreted as harsh. I think more communication needs to be
provided to explainthe decisions and how they will impact the University as a whole.
9.9 If the university were actually strategic, fewer missteps resulting in perceived greed of the
upper administration would occur. The need for faculty should trump yet another administration
position or administrator bonus.
9.10 As per problem with strategic planning above, a lack of focus in the overall mission &
strategic planning leaves faculty resources scattered and insufficient in each area. Focusing
efforts on institutional strengths seems an imperative (and not “trying” to change that
culture).
9.11 I am not so sure that President Jacobs is a strong advocate for UT in regards to recruiting
and retaining high quality staff and faculty and the professional reputation of UT has declined
due to a number of issues and policies driven by President Jacobs making UT a much
less attractive place to work.
33
Part 9. Comments on Human Capital Management Page 34 of 49
9.12 Those that he has recruited from outside(either pre-or post-merger)have not been impressive.
9.13 caters tot the overweight and the defensive.
9.14 I know of at least four young, dismayed faculty in my department who are currently searching
for positions elsewhere because the Jacobs policies have limited resources for our department
to the point that our mission is unsustainable. We were without our only secretary for almost
a year, and are not supported by our college to perform an appropriate search to replace
our outgoing chair. His human capial management is laughable.
9.15 Actually I know people looking to move to another university and have e.g. Eric Lambert
who was a fabulous Chair in the Criminal Justice Dept in HSHS
9.16 I guess the mediocre administrators serve him well.
9.17 Understanding of the “products” of Main Campus is lacking and, if at all present, is lost in
search for the latest trend.
9.18 Toadies rise. Others starve.
9.19 Dr. Jacobs’ insistence on his own market value while ignoring the value of faculty and staff
along with his willingness, even eagerness to layoff staff before there is a current, documented
need, prove he has no clear understanding of the importance of high-quality staff.
9.20 People are leaving main campus because they do not know what “new idea” this President
will come up with next.
9.21 The atmosphere at UT has become very toxic and he is not helping to reduce the negativity,
but at times he helps to increase it.
9.22 I was pleased that he took action against the homophobic human resources person; however,
I think that diversity in hiring continues to be undervalued. White males from the health
science campus are way overrepresented at the upper levels administration. The lack of
balance has created a lot of conflict and unnecessary waste.
9.23 The announced -then cancelled -faculty furlough plan was a major morale killer. UT faculty
are already underpaid when compared to other comparable schools, at least in my field. To
impose a paycut on faculty -when we would do the same amount of work -was not a good
idea. If no other university in Ohio pursues such a plan, I can’t see why it would ever make
sense for UT to do so.
9.24 Doesn’t have the interpersonal skills required for the job. When speaking to him, he constantly
looks around to see who’s looking at him. He’s seems very bored -and he asked the
question that you’re responding to. Again, morale is low. Good people are leaving or trying
to leave. One college has lost almost all of it’s internal leadership -people who have served
in leadership positions for years and have done a very effective job. Doesn’t seem concerned
about that at all.
9.25 There is a question whether the President truly has hired high-quality senior leadership,
especially in the financial area.
9.26 He is squandering human capital rather than conserving the excellence that is already here.
Maybe the human capital is always better elsewhere so we should let our best and brightest
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 9. Comments on Human Capital Management Page 35 of 49
flee the university so we can hire some other university’s second rate scholar. There is no
obvious connection between individual departments and the University’s top 100 program
or STEMM emphasis outside the obvious departments. I have never seen such low morale
in my entire time at this university. Faculty and staff will sacrifice, if its shared sacrifice. It
appears that the faculty, staff, and the PSA will sacrifice and the senior administration is
exempt from these demands.
9.27 Does not appear to engage the staff or faculty, doesn’t appear to have time other than open
forums.
9.28 In many instances he has not selected his direct reports with the best intentions of the
university, though he probably believes that he does. Adherence to his tight management
style is a much greater factor in his selections. And he influences at the next level, such as
the dean of A & S who did not last a year. That episode should have been enough for the
BOT to seriously question his leadership ability. The fact that he has so many key positions
filled with interims (three vice-provosts, head of affirmative action, dean of students, a dean
-effectively a second dean). This is not acceptable at this stage of his tenure. We desperately
need searches -some interim some national -for these positions. This item is the source of
significantly negative morale among the faculty and staff.
9.29 I speak to Arts and Science. Most departments suffer from lack of replacement of faculty
who retire who leave. In our department we are 5 faculty short. Other departments are
experiencing the same. At this rate, the administration will defintely succeed in destroying/
dismantling this college. It is a matter of time.
9.30 He’s just awful. The whole I can see into the soul of a tenure candidate is just nonsense.
9.31 Tenure interview is an example of a missed opportunity. Should happen throughout the
faculty’s time, not just before the tenure decision. It looks bad to potential recruits.
9.32 Must honor the contractual responsibilities for both financial support of research and the
teaching loads assigned from the beginning and not susdpend start-up funds nor change
asignments which can impinge on the success of a faculty membrer doing research and
attaining tenure.
9.33 He makes horrible HR decisions. YT Lee was his idea!! Also, currently, two colleges A&S
and Education now have non-academics sitting as deans!! He would NEVER do that to a
college of medicine. And, as stated above, he has Larry Burns as diversity administrator.
Also, he summarily makes interim appointments full time without any process but by decree
9.34 He treats people like dirt.
9.35 Staffing is overly weighted to the Medical College personnel, who often do not know the
roles and needs of other units.
9.36 Appoints cronies rather than undertaking high-level searches for critical positions. Drives
high quality faculty and adminstrators away by his heavy-handedness. Sets unreasonable
policies that make it difficult for talented faculty researchers to function.
9.37 Most junior faculty I know want to leave. Don’t see a future for themsevles at UT
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 9. Comments on Human Capital Management Page 36 of 49
9.38 I have not really seen the President make any attempt to demonstrate interpersonal skills
with those he considers beneath him (i.e., students, faculty, and staff) not even in terms of
the basics. The President has really created an atmosphere in which it is clear that he has
little respect for others and he does not seem to understand at all the need to have high
quality staff and faculty in order to improve the reputation of the University of Toledo and
the education/research opportunities provided to our students. I joined the faculty under
the previous administration so have only seen one other president at UT but I have never
experienced such an extreme ??us vs. them ?? atmosphere as the one that currently exists
on campus.
9.39 There will not be any high quality faculty or administrative staff at our institution until Dr.
Jacobs leaves.
9.40 There seems to be a one way flow of talent away from UT during his tenure. None of his big
ideas appear to be succeeding in reversing this. I don’t know what it looks like from above
or from the outside, but on the ground it appears that this university is slowly bleeding to
death in terms of talented faculty and staff. Fortunately this hasn’t translated into a loss
of talented students yet, but I can’t imagine that this will continue for much longer.
9.41 We hired 3 good people last year and lost 4. This year we just lost 4 more. We need good
people and the policies are driving away the good ones and leaving the bad ones in place.
9.42 He has refused to match offers or make offers to highly qualified people, many of them
women, who have worked on this campus. Institutional memory has been sacrificed to his
priorities of hiring people with limited or no background in higher education. His influence
is negative when it comes to establishing a community of administrators who work well to
further the interests of their constituencies.
9.43 The most recent round of layoffs is a case in point for how little he cares about human
capital. We have been led to believe that such budget decisions are made in accordance
with the university’s strategic plan. While that may be the intention at the top, this is
not how such decisions have been carried out by the vice presidents and deans. Instead of
making strategic cuts, deans made cuts in areas where they knew it was most likely to cause
pain and make faculty angry. And no one is apparently stopping them from this. My other
concern about the recent layoffs is that we are told on one hand how important diversity is
to the institution. Yet when it comes time to cut staff, those cut are at the bottom making
the least amount of money, and more heavily female and minority. Rather than cut 5 people
making $30,000 a year, how about just one vice president making $150,000? Would not that
be more “strategic,” and have much less of an impact on diversity?
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 10
Comments on Financial Management
10.1 Decisions regarding cost savings have not appeared to be creative.
10.2 Meets expectations, engages stakeholders, though in the end does not often value stakeholder
viewpoint.
10.3 Inappropriate spending on speculative ventures that are not related to the academics of
the insitution. This is of special concern in the current economic environment
10.4 Scandal ridden and corrupt. If his god really is listening I want to know which of Dante’s
levels he will fall into.
10.5 Stakeholders may be engaged, but monies are removed from budgets without notice.
10.6 Finances at UT are confusing and frought with poor business planning. How a school could
“lose” funding within its record-keeping, mishandle college funds and allocate unfairly to
each college seems illogical. As well, taking a bonus when the university is saying it is in
“financial hardship” is hypocritical.
10.7 The president does not appear to understand the link between resources and productivity.
Repeated, there have been examples of cuts being made in areas of high growth and growth
potential, when other units with far less growth have gone relatively un-touched.
10.8 Overall give the economic situation, the budget process has been fair and open, but some
strategic investments (renewable energy) may end up costing more then what the financial
return will be; focusing on a few priority areas may limit the ability of UT to be broadly
competitive and also we are investing in areas for which there exists a high level of competition
among many other institutions for limited state and federal funding (solar energy
for example)
10.9 Due to national difficulties, it is hard to know if others could have done better. It is prudent
to allow a different leadership to try.
10.10 pay checks were “fouled up” due to inadequate software management
10.11 I think he is trying, but trying is for Owens College, not UT.
10.12 Please...the President said that the HSHS college was ’top heavy’ and then proceeded to
eliminate the lowest paid secretarial positions. He also said that chairs had input into who
would be laid off. This was a blatant lie.
37
Part 10. Comments on Financial Management Page 38 of 49
10.13 So, what the hell do our books look like? Why layoffs when he’s budgeting 5M for science
stars? Why does he think layoffs are a good thing?
10.14 President Jacobs is very willing to continue rounds of firing of staff and other personnel,
but is unwilling to reconsider the large administrative bonuses received by administrators.
His cavalier attitude about these matters is demoralizing.
10.15 I believe he knows how to manipulated budgets and financial statements to say what he
wants them to say.
10.16 Overall he does well but his personal raises and bonuses are an embarrassment and he
doesn’t seem to understand that.
10.17 He needs to be more transparent... Too many budget decisions are made behind closed
doors.
10.18 I applaud his pro-active approach to anticipated economic challenges in 2012.
10.19 It’s a horrible time. I don’t think anyone could be doing any better.
10.20 Across-the-board budget cuts seem like the wrong way to go if the university wants to
improve in a strategic fashion. The hard choices mean cutting departments or schools that
are underperforming, rather than spreading the pain across all schools, making it harder
to deliver high quality education to all.
10.21 Our budgets change almost daily. Money is there one day and gone the next. We are told
our carry forward money is there and available and then are consistently denied in our
requests to use it. In fact it appears there is a shell game going on to make the books
look balanced. I question the legality of taking money in designated accounts at the end
of the year. It creates an environment where everybody spends every dime in a fiscal
year because they know the money will be gone on July 1. This isn’t fiscal accountability.
Budget cuts while administrators only ride in limos for their transportation to and from
airports is appalling -but permitted under this president. I know it’s a difficult time to
manage budgets, but there are still transparent, planful ways to do it.
10.22 The President and the CFO need to realize this is a University and not a Fortune 500
company.
10.23 He has yet to explain how the “investments” we are making today are likely to yield
revenue in the future. The investments of the university in start-ups, incubators, etc may
be great but the economic rational behind them to BENEFIT the university rather than
a speculative benefit to the community, generic good-will in the community, is unclear to
me and most of the people that I talk to.
10.24 Disagree with category descriptions. Financially responsible, but at what cost? Input from
others below the administration rank appears to be minimal.
10.25 There is an extremely low level of confidence among faculy and staff that budget decisions
reflect the best interests of the institution. Some decisions are valid an forward-thinking,
but his reputation is such that even these are disdained.
10.26 Furloughs while large bonuses are being distributed? Even if they were contractually
necessary, the timing of the announcement demonstrates the interpersonal cluelessness of
the president.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 10. Comments on Financial Management Page 39 of 49
10.27 It is not clear that Dr. Jacobs is aware of the sources of revenue for the University in terms
of the undergraduate program. His seemingly mono-vision about graduate and professional
education seems to prevent him from focusing on the programs (especially in the liberal
arts and the social sciences) that generate the profits on which the rest of the University
depends.
10.28 Need some one to look into the spending habbits of the adminstrators. We have too many
administrators. We spend lots of money on sports-may be some one shoud audit the
budget. I am not certain that the figure they present are actual.
10.29 I f we adopt his latest ramblings the university will go bankrupt.
10.30 Budget decisions are slow and unexpected.
10.31 The budget can be met by eliminating the president provosts and the other administrative
vice and associate vice presidents and other exceptionally high paid administers and this
universitty will still be able to run itself. In fact we could run it better and at a profit.
Have administrators teach at the upper university echelons. Let thm walk a mile in our
shoes.
10.32 He has done an okay job on this front
10.33 Why are the accountants running this place? WE ARE NOT A BUSINESS, WE ARE AN
EDUCATION INSTITUTION. Look at the shape of the economy with business people in
charge. Look what happened to the big 3 automakers with business in charge. What are
the best practices in business that are being used by the administration to ensure similar
mistakes are not being made?
10.34 Is too autocratic and needs to pare down the costs of administrative functions before
releasing general staff.
10.35 Financial decisions are not transparent. Insufficient sharing of detail in financial allocations
with stakeholders. Does not make clear where funds are coming from, or what was sacrificed
to get them, for his pet projects.
10.36 Hard to know since there is so little transparency around budgetary matters
10.37 new buildings and monuments, and incredible bonuses, yet can’t afford maintenance staff
or office personnel or faculty to fill student needs
10.38 It is hard to label this administration as financially accountable when taking huge bonuses
while they are laying people off, demanding furloughs and while unable to provide real
leadership for the University.
10.39 plans in place to deal with financial difficulties.
10.40 There is no long term commitment to our institution when contractual longevity bonuses
are paid to people after 2 and 3 years of service. There is no transparency in the budget
process. Different formulas are used to calculate revenues and are used to calculate expenses.
The perception is that general operating funds are being transferred to research
corridor projects and to the expansion of the medical college and hospital. There is no
access to the budget reports on line or in the library that were always there as public
records prior to Dr. Jacobs’ presidency.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 10. Comments on Financial Management Page 40 of 49
10.41 Ultimately this relates to my biggest complaint about Dr. Jacobs. He has a lot of big
ideas, but doesn’t seem to realize that it takes resources to implement these ideas. He
seems to believe that he can pay for these big ideas by diverting resources away from the
core services this university is supposed to provide. In the end, this may drive students
and our ultimate source of revenue away.
10.42 Hard to say here because the accounting practices make it impossible to track the budget.
Budgeting $50 million dollars for deterioration of facilities is a good way to escape scrutiny.
$30 million transferred from the operating budget to building. Why? building budgets
10.43 Constant awarding of bonuses to administative officials under the banner of requirement
to reward such individuals to retain “the best and the brightest”, While leaving the faculty
and staff to struggle with cutbacks and limited resources.
10.44 The faculty are supposed to be represented in the budget development process through the
Fiscal Resources and Strategy Committee. But I understand that this committee is given
very little information about actual specific budget decisions. They only view aggregate
data, not specific data for colleges and programs. So they are making “decisions” based
upon little actual information that truely reflects the implications of the budget. After
being told of the devastating affect of budget reductions on small departments and how even
losing one person is often the difference between surviving and folding, the latest budget
reductions continued to hit small departments particularly hard. My own department lost
its only support staff position, and went from a staff of three to just two. Losing one-third
of your staff is much different than losing a staff member in a department of 10 or 15. Yet
no consideration was given to the impact of the budget decisions.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 11
Comments on Diversity
11.1 Includes diversity and inclusion goals in planning, but does not necessarily fosters solid
relationships
11.2 Not only has this president failed to encourage the merging of the MUO/UT cultures, he
seems to deliberately create “wedge” issues that prevent the two faculties from coming
together.
11.3 I appreciate this and think that it serves the University well.
11.4 Tends to think of diversity rather simplistically, on the basis of race or ethnicity. Does not
consider issues of gender and class thoughtfully.
11.5 His diversity panel is a joke. Half the diversity on campus is not represented.
11.6 Only if “diversity” comes with $$$ attached does it seem to matter
11.7 Most of the attemps along these lines sound good, but have not been impressive.
11.8 invites poorly prepared student for a “free tuition” ride. Once the university has the
student’s fees for housing and administration, it’s discovered that the student can’t even
read at a grade school level.
11.9 Glad he thinks weirdos need their own heads. What about scholarship?
11.10 Language of compliance and tolerance masks surface actions that do not really address
these issues.
11.11 This may be his greatest strength.
11.12 Many around him do not want to point this out to him but he appears to have an “old boys”
network around him, which keeps him from better connecting with the UT community and
culture.
11.13 Here I think his lack of experience with diverse populations is a true weakness. While it
isn’t possible that all of us can know all there is to know about diversity, hiring a white
male with absolutely no expertise to run the diversity program is the epitome of not getting
it.
41
Part 11. Comments on Diversity Page 42 of 49
11.14 I hear complaints from the members of the African American community regularly about
how layoffs and positions eliminations have disproportionately affected people of color and
women. Members of the Toledo community have experessed to me that they don’t see any
commitment to diversity at all -even putting a white guy in charge of the diversity office.
The culture is not inclusive. Minorities are given a greater workload regularly because of
the requirement to have diversity on committees, but no one offers them a break on their
workload in terms of a lighter load for research and/or teaching. Many departments, are
all white!! I haven’t heard anything since this president took office, to indicate any concern
or strategy to address this problem.
11.15 He talks the talk, does he walk the walk, I do not not know—and I will leave that to others
to evaluate. I do know that the way he treated an Asian American dean in Arts & Sciences
and his emailed joke about throwing him under the bus showed complete disrespect to that
dean–but then may be he has no respect for any of his deans so race should not considered
as a factor in that ill-time comment.
11.16 A very mixed bag. He acts like and probably believes that diversity of individuals strengthens
the institution, but he clearly does not want to hear a diversity of opinion. Some of
his speech is unintentionally insulting -the recent budget decisions are “good-news” except
for those who are laid off. He is tone deaf to how his words and actions are perceived.
11.17 Diversity in upper administration? Would the differences in height among the white males
count?
11.18 Dr. Jacbobs’ sensitive to and interest in promoting diversity is not evident. Comments
made early in his Presidency about the role of women have not been fully countered by
his statements and actions. There has been some indication of his interest in the rights of
those in the GLBT community, and that should be noted positively.
11.19 His idea of diversity and mine are slightly different. I consider the word in its broadest
form, he considers only race.
11.20 See above
11.21 diversity is the sole qualification for hiring
11.22 I do not have a full picture here but it has been appalling to many on campus to see the
President refer to our Dr. Haggett as ??Rosemary ?? in formal meetings and then turn
around and address Dr. Gold as ??Dr. Gold ??. Additionally, I have heard that Dr.
Haggett has been asked to take notes for members of the administration as if she were
a secretary. Additionally it seems that Dr. Gold has quite a bit of authority on campus
whereas the same does not appear to be true for Dr. Haggett. Whether or not this is based
on her sex it certainly appears so. It comes as no surprise that she is leaving.
11.23 addresses the issue
11.24 Just look at the lack of women and people of color in faculty and administrative positions
at our institution. Watch who will be laid off first. We are going backwards in areas of
diversity. It is impossible to even figure out who our institution’s affirmative action officer
even is. I tried to help a student who had a possible harrassment complaint and it took
several hours of “digging” and phoning people to figure out where to direct the student.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 11. Comments on Diversity Page 43 of 49
11.25 He appears to have a diverse group of administrators, and has supported many initiatives
to improve diversity within faculty, staff and students.
11.26 I don’t see a problem with diversity on the campus.
11.27 He claims to be interested in diversity, but it is a shallow and inconsistent commitment.
11.28 At the most recent Town Hall meeting, the president opened with an interesting slip of
the tongue. He said that the Town Hall meeting have been “diverted to diversity” rather
than “devoted to diversity.” And I believe he actually meant what he originally said. His
comments were all very encouraging in respect to diversity, but when the hard decisions
have to be made, he is only too willing to cut positions at the bottom where they are more
likely to impact women and minorities than at the top. The elimination of just one vice
president (and almost all of his vice president are white males) would save many low-paying
jobs. The University of Toledo is also a very negative environment for women. You need
only look to the list of bright, capable women who have left here in the past three years to
see evidence of this. And those women who are left are expected to pull more than their
own weight, and often to do the work of men who are above them. I am tired of women
being the workhorses of this university while men are the public faces.
11.29 Treated the Provost like his secretary. And with her departure, the senior administrators
are all white males, interestingly with an african american secretary and administrative
assistant. http://www.utoledo.edu/campus/administration/president/index.html
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 12
Overall Comments
12.1 It is my impression that Dr. Jacobs is biased toward the medical school side of things so
most of his effort and decision making seems to favor the medical school.
12.2 While Dr. Jacobs appears to mean well, there has been a distinct shift in words and actions
over the years, thus effectiveness is waning in this difficult climate.
12.3 I believe this president has made certain decisions and behaved in such a way as to provoke
faculty reactions that are deliberately calculated to make the faculty look bad in the eyes
of the community and the BOT.
12.4 Thanks for all that you do! I know that your position is not an easy one to be in.
12.5 Lloyd Jacobs is a dreadful leader. He knows nothing of undergraduate education and has
no desire to learn. His leadership style consists of doing everything his way, while giving
lip service to inclusiveness and shared governance. I’ve been here over 30 years, and this
is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, including good old Vik. That’s saying a lot.
12.6 I am frustrated by the lack of qualifications of the current president for the responsibilities
of the position. I am dismayed that the members of the board of trustees do not provide
the oversight of the presdient as they are legally obligated to provide in their positions.
12.7 UT lost a good president in Dan. How UT “won” with Lloyd is yet to be seen, that’s for
sure.
12.8 The only real feedback that I would like to give the President is that I would like to
see more scrutiny of the efforts of departments/colleges to gain extra funding. Some are
great(e.g. Engineering) but others (e.g. in Arts and Sciences) could really be encouraged
to be doing a lot more grant applications. If this came from leadership down, as a kind of
directive, some of our budget problems could be addressed through external funding. In
the last five years, there has never been even one meeting about applying for funding in
my Department. This makes it seem like funding isn’t important -if each department WAS
MADE to report on what it is doing about applying for funding through a President’s
directive, or something, the under-performing departments would be under more pressure
to lift their game. That is my only suggestion for improvement.
12.9 Overall a very good job! However, there are some weaknesses that should be addressed.
12.10 I have made no comments because the upper administration has demonstrated that it really
does care about this university.
44
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 45 of 49
12.11 I used the above to comment. This administration needs to rework/reprioritize their foci
and work with (not against) their human capital. Working from a private business model of
leadership in a structure that has spent 100+ years moving towards an alternate (better?)
model of governance is many steps backwards and counterproductive...spend some time
with history.
12.12 President Jacobs is obviously a very bright man and a strong leader. I suspect that he why
he receives such strong support from the BOT. However, those two qulaities DO NOT make
him an effective leader. Under his administration the morale of the faculty has steadily
declined, which undoubtedly influences the students and the overall productivity of the
university. Universities run best when there is an atmosphere of collegiality and collective
decision-making. Both of these have seriously eroded under the Jacobs administration. Dr.
Jacobs seems to have the attitude that he (and his senior leadership team) know what is
best for the university, and thus, should make all of the critical decisions. The reality is
that very few of the members of this group (including the President) have ever lived the
life of a professor. Thus....they don’t always know what is best, and as a result, have made
a series of blunders in terms of critical decisions.
12.13 I have never seen a university president afraid of his students. Presidents always relish the
opportunity to interact with students because presidents know that type of interaction is
reported to parents -the purse-keepers. What reports are going how about L.J.?
12.14 This is the worst President I’ve seen. I will not be reviewing the Provost because he takes
his direction from the President as everyone knows ’shit rolls down hill’. I don’t know how
much the Provost is being directed to say and do and so I don’t believe I could make a
fair assessment of the Provost at this time. I am praying for a vote of no confidence in the
President.
12.15 This tool was very difficult to use to convey one’s perceptions/assessment –too many elements
of diverse foci listed in single benchmark description; found myself marking “meets
expectations” even if improvement in 1-2 of key indicators is needed.
12.16 In a nutshell, Jacobs is Vik with a scalpel. Sooner the BOT sees this the better off we’ll
all be.
12.17 Sooner or later, I think that President Jacobs will resign or be asked to resign.
12.18 I hope President Jacobs will continue to work towards a tobacco free campus! Keep up the
fine work.
12.19 It is obvious that Dr. Jacobs both fears and does not understand the concept of shared
governance. The University of Toledo has survived worse ordeals than his presidency,
though frankly it does rival that of Kapoor, and it will survive this, though there will be
a high price to pay.
12.20 I think he makes too many changes too rapidly and needs to involve faculty more.
12.21 I wish Dr. Jacobs would work with faculty before making grand vision statements. It would
make it easier to find common ground. My biggest concern is that he seems to appoint
administrators who will agree with him. Provosts who fawn over the president cannot be
advocates for the university. We see the Provosts as “yes men or women”. If we really
wanted create the work environment that moved this university forward, we would have a
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 46 of 49
stronger relationship between the faculty and our provost. When that relationship is weak,
we cannot work through proper channels. I think that relationship is week because we, as
faculty, are not really part of the process. The Provost is told, “I want this to happen” and
the Provost must make it happen. Treat the Faculty as intelligent, resourceful, motivated
professionals and you will have partners. Treat them as cogs in a wheel and you will have
only flat tires.
12.22 Although Dr. Jacobs is not a warm, fuzzy person, I respect the challenges that he faces as
the head of a large, metropolitan, state-assisted university. I wish for him only the best,
and would encourage him to use the expertise on the campus a bit more to help him face
these challenges. I think if he would do that more, he would find that most of us hold this
university in high esteem and would work diligently to help it in any way that we could.
12.23 I truly wish for the President to be successful and for UT to thrive and the environment to
become more positive, but I don’t think that is going to happen unless he gets new more
innovative people around him from all areas at UT not just the medical school.
12.24 Dr. Jacobs has performed well during a very difficulty merger. There has been considerable
progress as he has come to understand the culture of the main campus.
12.25 I regret that this assessment is not more positive because I like the President as a person;
however, I think that the President’s leadership style is not a good fit with the university
community. While there are times and circumstances when I have appreciated his swift
action and decisiveness, overall, in terms of vision and long-term understanding of the
health of the university, we really need someone who is a consensus builder, and he is not
one, in my experience.
12.26 Morale is at the lowest I’ve seen in the 13 years I’ve been here -even lower than under
Kapoor. Our board of trustees seem to not understand the difference between a business
and a public institution. A $300,000 bonus of tax payer money should be a crime. Shared
governance is gone. Respect for those who work under him is hard to see. I can’t believe
the faculty have not collectively taken a vote of no confidence against this man. But, he
also has a vindictive side and some are probably fearful of their jobs during these economic
times.
12.27 Dr. Jacobs is a tremendous leader. I was part of the selection committee that brought
him to our campus, and I must say that his performance to date has exceeded our high
expectations.
12.28 Overall, I think that the President has fulfilled his responsibilites well. There is always the
issue that he is an MD and shows favoritism to the HSC but I do not see that. If anything,
his hard line decisions with no input from the faculty is the most glaring fault that I see.
12.29 Dr. Jacobs needed to go through an earlier review to improve some of the deficiencies.
12.30 I recommend that the faculty senate bring a motion to the floor and debate a motion of
no confidence in President Jacobs. I do not think that he is a bad person-just not the
right person for this job right now. I think that he does not understand how to lead a
university and the need to build consensus and lead from the bottom up. Rather, he and
his administration barks orders without necessarily understanding college or department
cultures in an vain and feckless attempt at a one-size fits all colleges, departments, and
centers style of management. Further, it did not help his legitimacy with the faculty when
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 47 of 49
the Trustees renewed him or extended his contract despite promises to the faculty for a
national search.
12.31 President Jacobs is visible in the community, I like that he represents UT and is planning
for the future with strategic directions/initiatives, but he needs to engage with his employees.
I applaud him for renovating building, building new facilities, repairing parking
lots, improving classrooms, etc., BUT our UT Telephone Information system is horrible
(try to get an employees office number or dept.), our website is archaic and not functional
or practical and that is often the first impression our visitors get, our IT systems need
improvement and decisions from administration need to happen faster. In the process of
downsizing/rightsizing/re-engineering we are cutting resources we need to deliver services
to our students, patients, etc. We all want to position the university for the future, but to
do so the President needs to engage the stakeholders, not all decisions need to be made by
administration.
12.32 The decision to hire Dr. Lloyd Jacobs as president of UT was one of the worst decisions
by the BOT in our recent history -yes, hiring Dr. Kapoor was worse in a sense in that he
was a poorer president, but at least Kapoor’s ineptness was apparent quickly and he was
gone in 17 months. Jacobs is smarter, but even less informed of best practices in higher
education. He is particularly weak with respect to the management of leaders and workers,
and the means to achieve effective communication. The board is just now making some
attempt to determine the reality of his actions -4 years after their fateful decision. UT is
a very good university and could become even better, but not with this leadership team
and not under Dr. Jacobs headship. Employees -both faculty and staff -are so demoralized
that it feels like the soul is being drained from the institution. We have lost incredible
leaders and gifted faculty members -and many are leaving at the end of this term. Just
like after the Kapoor reign, it will take a very long time to recover from the present dark
period. I implore the Board of Trustees to really determine how poorly this university
is being managed and to what extent opportunities -and people -are being lost -and to
act decisively to replace from the top. Higher education is in a state of crisis, which the
president well realizes and regularly addresses in his comments, but he evokes no confidence
that he can be part of the solution for this institution. This university, our students, our
employees and this community deserve better -far better than what has been forced upon
us. Finally, I do appreciate the opportunity to express my views, though 4 years was much
too long to wait for this to happen.
12.33 Does not understand the difference in culture between a medical school and a university.
Does not understand the difference between dictatorship and leadership.
12.34 The focus on start up companies and creative economic leadership ( e.g., UTIE) is excellent.
However, you need stronger people than Mary Jo Waldock and Danaie Jacobs. Rick
Stansley is good; Frank Calzonetti is fantastic; get more like them.
12.35 President Jacobs has the distinction of being the most noninclusive president in UT recent
history. He doesn’t care about–nor encourages–input from faculty, staff, or students.
12.36 Dr. Jacobs’ term has been on where the public mission of the president (usually seen as
the central responsibility of presidents of large institutions) have been sacrificed for a focus
on the day to day functioning and direction of the institution. It is not clear that he trusts
his direct reports (especially the Provosts) to lead the academic mission. His lack of and
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 48 of 49
apparent interest in fund raising and donor cultivation has hurt the efforts of the university
in that area.
12.37 The man needs someone around him who will actually tell him he’s so full of it his eyes
are brown. His town hall meetings are an embarrassment. All the gophers and kiss-ups
are there vying to show who loves him the most.
12.38 Give back some of the bonus and salary to reduce the debt. Don’t be a pig at the trough.
12.39 I hoped that he would grow in the job, but his disregard for faculty and student input
undermines his effectiveness. And he shows no sign of changing or growing. I await 2013.
Then, I hope, we will have a legitimate national search and get a president who will help us
rise to our potential as a great American university. His unilateral decision to disrupt the
tenure process for a “personal meeting” will make it impossible for us to hire new rising
national stars anyhow, so there’s nothing to be done but wait until Lloyd Jacobs leaves to
get going again.
12.40 The people in the trenches, the faculty who are in place to actually fulfill the mission and
goals of the university, who understand their job and what needs to be done are being
hindered by the administration. By placing business people in charge of colleges and with
the threat of replacing department chairs with such personnel will lead to incredibly low
morale on campus and an exodus of the top people who are most mobile. Hardly the type
of leadership UT deserves. It is time to replace President Jacobs.
12.41 I have never seen such poor decision-making and such a hostile atmosphere on a college
campus. While everyone is going through rough times because of the economy our problems
seem to go way beyond this. The President seems to have very strong ideas and won ??t
allow any dissent ?? historically this has been a dangerous way to make decisions. Further
the President doesn ??t seem able to bring important constituencies on board nor does he
even seem interested in doing so. His priority seems to be managing the message that gets
to the BOT rather than providing real leadership and opportunities on campus.
12.42 The merger transition is finished. We need competent leadership to provide for the educational
needs of the public we serve. Our university, our students, and our community need
leaders who will make public service their very first priority.
12.43 My ratings are based on newspaper reports and comments I hear at faculty and Arts and
Sciences meetings. Including where I got my PhD, this is the third univeristy I have taught
at. That is not a big sample for comparative purposes, but for what it is worth I can say
the morale of faculty here is much lower than at the other two universities. Much lower.
Some of this might be due to factors beyond the President’s control, such as the nation’s
economic downturn. But also, I get the sense from the President’s public statements that he
could do a better job in the points I rated above. At least I can say that I think he is trying
to make UT a welcoming environment to diverse people, and I applaud the President for
taking a stand on gay rights (although I might have done it differently, myself). Sadly, the
faculty of UT have done a much less impressive job of making this university a welcoming
environment.
12.44 My biggest issue with Dr. Jacobs -fund raising or lack thereof. His clearly has many big
ideas, and many of these ideas I agree with. But he also seems to be devoted to day-to-day
micromanagement of university operations. Big ideas need big money. If Dr. Jacobs wants
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs
Part 12. Overall Comments Page 49 of 49
these ideas to succeed, he needs to go out find some resources to fund them. I don’t want to
see him on web videos and town hall meetings, let his talented provosts deal with that. He
needs to be on the road raising money for this university. Ultimately that is the primary
responsibility for any successful university president.
12.45 Help! UT is being trashed by this leadership. Kapoor was worse than Jacobs but he was
so bad that even the Board of Trustees was alerted and kicked him out after 17 months.
Jacobs has had 3 years to trash the place and no sign of a let up.
12.46 Followed a path to commit significant university resources to moving the school of pharmacy
from the main campus to the health science campus, a decision with no real tangible benefit
to either campus of to the school of pharmacy itself. Resources comsumed in this endeavor
could probably have been better utilized elswere.
12.47 I’m not overly opposed to keeping Jacobs as the President, but I think he could use some
real growth in his interactions with the faculty and the rest of the university. This is a
big-time division I university. You cannot micro-manage everything on this giant campus,
so start believing in your hired help and pay more attention to the things a president is
supposed to be doing, rather than mundane tasks like approving the hiring of employees
for grant-funded positions.
12.48 Dr. Jacobs is qualified to be the Dean of a Medical School, but not to be President of a
University. He is not able to understand or further the many and varied constituencies that
have to be at the table. His view is provincial and managerial, not broad and creative. He
wants to centralize authority and standardize educational opportunity across the board.
12.49 He should make the budget more transparent.
12.50 I realize that the president was put in his position because it was the only way the merger
would work. But the merger is three years over, and it is time that we look to new
leadership that is not tied to either former institution, but rather someone with extensive
higher education experience who understands what the University of Toledo is really about,
and would be willing to put in the hard work to forge a real merged institution rather than
one that is merged in name only.
12.51 It is wise that the current president considers stepping down or resigning. The UT and the
Community will be better off if we have a national search for a different CEO or president.
The medical model or business philosophy does not work in higher education. We need
to share governance and responsibility as a two-way street. It is very unethical to have
bonuses for those upper administration while dismissing others or have furlough.
12.52 There are so many aspects of my job that I love: my department, my colleagues, my
students, my scholarship. I wish there were some way I could convey the pleasure I take in
my work–not to mention just how hard I work every day!–to President Jacobs, because I feel
that maybe one of the reasons he doesn’t seem to want to be our advocate is because he only
deals with administrative faculty bodies rather than professors in the classroom. Maybe
if he had the chance to see the integrity with which my colleagues conduct themselves, he
would be less eager to impose restructuring changes from the top down without consulting
the faculty. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to get this across! I hope he keeps trying to
get to know faculty so that he doesn’t write us off, and I hope he keeps trying to enlist our
ideas rather than simply imposing changes.
UT Faculty Senate Performance Review of President Jacobs