Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Here is Where We Find Out if BOT Members Can Read or Not

[Apologies for the format changes that make this document less easy to scan than the original.  --B.]

UT Faculty Senate Review of the Administrator Performance of 1
President Lloyd A. Jacobs
Evaluated by
The Faculty of the University of Toledo
Spring 2013
Key/meaning to scores reported below:
1.00 = Unsuccessful 2.00 = Needs Improvement 3.00 = Meets Expectations
4.00 = Exceeds Expectations 5.00 = Role Model
Scores from Faculty Members (n = 382)
2.26 1.98 2.26 2.26 2.14 2.08 2.15 1.93 2.11 2.58 2.57
1. Ethics & Integrity 2. Financial Management 3. Leadership 4. Responsibility and Accountability 5. Knowledge And Expertise In Higher Education 6. Strategic Planning 7. Communication/Interpersonal Skills 8. Human Capital Management 9. Problem Solving and Decision-Making
10. Diversity and Inclusion 11. External Relations 12. Comments on the President’s Overall Performance
President Jacobs’s Overall Performance Score:
Details & comments on page
8 17 24 31 41 50 61 70 79 85 91
1This evaluation was conducted by the 2012 – 2013 Faculty Senate Executive Committee:
Michael Dowd, President Linda Rouillard, Vice President Lawrence Anderson, Past President
Lucy Duhon, Executive Secretary Nick Piazza, OFC Representative Diane Cappelletty, At-Large (HSC)
Sara Lundquist, At-Large (MC) Mark Templin, At-Large (MC) Frederick Williams, At-Large (HSC)Area 1 Ethics & Integrity
The extent to which the President demonstrates integrity and character in decision-making, behavior, and communication.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations:
Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.26
Faculty Respondents
Does not remove self from conflicts of interest or recog- 116 nize conflicting positions of others. Fails to treat others with respect during interpersonal interactions or during public forums. Displays a “win at all costs” attitude.
Sometimes lacks openness or transparency in decisions 103 or behaviors. Occasionally does not follow through on commitments. May show favoritism to some individuals or groups, rather than focusing on what is good for the
overall university.
Aware of implications of actions and considers them 75 prior to making decisions and taking action. Balances the interests of all stakeholders, insofar as possible, when making decisions. Is consistent in behavior and words.
Maintains constructive and open dialogue, even when 24 working with angry or difficult persons. Counsels oth- ers and takes action to ensure they comply with profes- sional and ethical standards. Demonstrates trustworthi-
ness with confidential information.
Acts with integrity and honesty in interactions with 27 others. Adheres to ethical standards for behavior and demonstrates professional conduct. Treats others with respect and civility regardless of status or personal differences.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 37
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 1 begin on the following page.
AREA 1. ETHICS & INTEGRITY 2 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 1 (verbatim)
1.1 OK, so maybe THIS ONE is his worse quality!! And he often sends his underlings out to do his deeds.
1.2 So far as I can tell, the man has no ethical compass other than to maximize his own financial gain. He has hired an incredible number of administrators for incredible amounts of money. “Win at all costs” is the correct description. Part of his problem is an enormous ego.
1.3 He is constantly bullying, hurts those who is least protected, he lied many times and took actions behind people back.
1.4 I will give the president of the benefit of the doubt and assume that the constant changes in policies and qualifications of policies are based on new facts or erroneous communication initially offered in a good faith belief that they were initially true. I further question much of how UTs technology innovation programs are handled, the funding, and hiring of consultants. I may be legal, but is is not transparent, and appears to be inappropriate as it has been reported in the Blade and in rumors on campus. Further, the various statements he has taken in the press and before the legislature that he could save millions of dollars if it was not for the unions. Yet as far as I know he never asked the unions for these changes in work rules either before the statement or after the failure of the legislation. If he is being truthful, there are millions of dollars of savings on the table that he is not pursuing, if this is true he is either incompetent or a liar (or both). I am certain that you will get numerous examples of this type of misdirection. It is scary that junior nontenured faculty will not serve on some committees because they are afraid of reprisals. Faculty do not use university email because they are worried that it will be monitored. I am not sure the creating a culture of fear is properly under ethics, perhaps it is really a leadership principle, see Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince. Also,when Dr. Jacobs was named the interim head of the newly merged institution. The faculty was promised a short term contract and a national search. The Board is free to do whatever it wanted to in terms of hiring. However, an ethical person would not have accepted an extension to the contract absent faculty approval and would have removed himself from further consideration.
1.5 Decisions are abrupt and often confusing, frequently back-pedaled later when they prove to be unworkable. As an external arbitrator recently found, the basic requirements for faculty consultation required under the collective bargaining agreement are not being me.
1.6 He showed a total lack of integrity by accepting bonuses and raises during economic crisis. He gives the appearance of lining his own pockets and aggrandizing himself at the expense of UT, the faculty, and students.
1.7 Really?...see above. 1.8 I think he meets expectations; however, I have observed favoritism. 1.9 He redefines integrity.
1.10 Fail. President Jacobs and his administration inspires selfishness and corruption. We will lose facutly and students increasingly to Lourdes because they will not tolerate an academic environment that centers on the corrupting Jacobs business model.
1.11 Relationships with and compensation for former board of trustees members appear to be egre- gious cases of COI.
1.12 No transparency or accountabilty. There should also be a review about conflicts of interest, especially with some of the appointments.
1.13 Would expect more integrity from a physician, but maybe that is part of selection for surgeons (Though I have worked with higher integrity surgeons as well)
AREA 1. ETHICS & INTEGRITY 3 1.14 Hiring former board members for important position after a revolving door is just one glaring
example. 1.15 “my way or the highway” attitude 1.16 See comments in other areas above!
1.17 Dismisses faculty input and repeatedly fails to live up to his end of agreements in the UT-AAUP CBA and in the Faculty Senate constitution. He makes up conflicting rationales for policies. He has no integrity. He’s is very hostile to the elected representatives of the faculty.
1.18 To continue claiming that the administration has cut costs by $10 million dollars since 2009 while the colleges have only cut costs by $200K shows a lack of integrity. No one believes it.
1.19 Lack of openness and transparency in decisions is true–never got an answer why A&S needed to be dismantled and JHCOE and HSHS needed to be merged to become bigger than A&S ever was. Now that merger is dissolved. There is still a perception of favoritsm toward HSC– expecially in hiring Scott Scarbourgh.
1.20 I do not trust this administration.
1.21 See comments #7
1.22 It is hard to express criticism in this area without appearing subjective. However, the President appears self-centered, favoring his colleagues in the appear administration and shows a very uneven hand in distributing bonuses.
1.23 He is the most unethical,lack of integrity person I know. Seriously, how does he sleep at night??????? Oh yes, I learned that in my mental health classes, some people have no conscious.
1.24 Allowed a faculty member to hold down two full time director positions, insinuating it was for the “good of the students” instead of dismissing the perpetrator of such an unethical act.
1.25 His recent court challenge to the reorganization arbitration awarded to the AAUP shows he is a sore loser and unashamed of wasting taxpayer money to “win at all costs”
1.26 Ignores and usurps the faculty contracts. When he loses at one level (arbitration), he takes the decision into state courts. Waste of taxpayer money.
1.27 Unless stakeholders refers specifically to Board of Trustees, do not feel the President’s decisions take interests of faculty or students into account.
1.28 What integrity?
1.29 Yes, Jacobs must win at all costs. Where is the BOT?
1.30 Too many resources are split between the PharmD and BSPS programs and the creation of a new BSPS program with no potential to enroll 30 or more students into it annually was a waste of resources which are needed in the other established programs. Despite the accrediting body indicating that 2 new administrative positions are required for the PharmD program (assessment director and associate Dean for academic affairs) no push from the Dean has occurred for these positions. Resources went elsewhere yet again.
1.31 He fails to recognize the many conflicts of interest inside his administration.
1.32 Not enough information. But no apparent reason to believe otherwise.
1.33 When is he going to realize that we are here to service our students. New policies are going to cause hardship, extended time for graduation, new courses not being developed, lower course rerollment course will be cancels and something unrelated will be substituted.
1.34 HHis video talks create an appearance of collegiality that is false. The individuals he interviews (or who appear with his representatives) appear to be hand picked to represent only his own side of issues. There seems to be a low tolerance for those who speak out against him.
1.35 Very little integrity when one keeps his bonus while cutting the jobs of others
1.36 The President does not consult with a wide enough circle of people to make informed decision before making decisions.
1.37 He does not show respect for students or faculty.
1.38 As mentioned above I consider bonuses of six figures during these huge budget deficits is just immoral.
1.39 Transparency is lacking, especially in the business ventures associated with the University.
1.40 Supports “buddy” system at all levels
1.41 Has high appearance of acting in own interests and in interests of those who will support his own interests. Documented nepotism is widely known.
1.42 Surgical departments get favorable treatment.
1.43 Would have been one better up to the “handshake” deal that engaged the Board Chair who hired this president as the director of our “venture capital” fund at $1200/day.
1.44 There is a lack of communication between the campus players-stakeholders: administration, faculty, staff and students. Its the top-down approach and micro-managing of plans, programs and people. There is only one voice, the voice of the administration..
1.45 He does not have the best interest of the university in mind when promoting his subordinates. A failed financial officer with a dubious background who lost significant amounts of general funds in poor investments has been promoted to provost. The awarding of longevity bonuses should stop. If done on merit, there should be decreases in salary.
1.46 I am still bothered by the president admitting openly we can claim fees on students to support one aspect of the University but actually use the money for something else.
1.47 selection of current provost is most current example
1.48 This area he deserves respect. He is honest and ethical in who he is and what he does as President. Nothing negative about his personal ethical behaviors.
1.49 I am on the fence with this one. I believe that there are better ways to handle difficult situations, but his style is to do things the way he has.
1.50 I dont sense that he is always entirely honest when he communicates with the university com- munity or the greater Toledo community. I sense that stories are ’spun’ a certian way to save face.
1.51 The stimulus money expired for all universities. No other university in the same category like Wayne State University, Oakland University, Wright State University, Akron etc. are asking the faculty to teach four courses.
1.52 There is a lack of transparency at UT in nearly everything we do. Dr. Jacobs seems to revel in conflict, and the recent conflict of interest with Mr. Stansley provides a relevant example. The need for creating an entirely new and different faculty organization (University Council) with whom to interact demonstrates the lack of integrity Dr. Jacobs demonstrates for the faculty (through Faculty Senate and Graduate Council). As the rubric suggests, Dr. Jacobs displays a ???win at all costs??? attitude.
1.53 I have no confidence in the ethics of UT. 1.54 He should be ashamed 1.55 Has a long record of disconnects between statements and performance.
1.56 President Jacobs is way too secretive. While he may not openly lie, he certainly is not partic- ularly transparent, particularly when it comes to disclosing information that may not reflect well upon himself or his ad.
1.57 The description that accompanies the anchor “unsuccessful” seems to have been written to specifically describe Dr. Jacobs’ behavior – not sure I could say it any better than this.
1.58 Impressive self control in the face of excessive provocation from some. This does not imply agreement with his decisions, just his comportment as a leader.
1.59 Not just “sometimes.” The administration seems to run as a clique.
1.60 Ethics? In connection with Lloyd Jacobs? “Sometimes lacks openness or transparency”?
1.61 (As above...) Pres Jacobs has consistently ignored any input from the students and the faculty, instead choosing to listen only to other administrators. Administrators don’t make a university what it is - the students and faculty do. Students and faculty want to help make UT the best it can possibly be, but Pres Jacobs, for some reason, refuses to buy into this philosophy. I also am concerned about a general lack of transparency with Pres. Jacobs’ adminstration.
1.62 I have to say that he is always professional even when dealing with disgruntled faculty.
1.63 His strongest attributes.
1.64 There should be a greater commitment to retaining University employees in tough economic times.
1.65 Exemplary personal behavior and expectations for all UT employees and students.
1.66 Quality issues are repeatedly covered up and not documented. There is no formal quality program in the hospital.
1.67 There are times when the Provost is flat out dishonest.
1.68 Two words - Rick Stansley.
1.69 This person is probably the least trustworthy of any individual for whom I have ever worked. He is dishonest with faculty and staff, but more importantly, he is dishonest with the BOT.
1.70 I beleive Dr. Jacobs is very honest and has very strong integrity. I think that he is sincere in his decision-making is tries to make the best decision for the university, the faculty, staff and student. I thinks treats all people with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, part of the nature of such a leadership position-people will be against you no matter what you do. However, I think Dr. Jacobs tries to do the right things for the right reason...which is clearing a good sign of a leader.
1.71 STEM, HSC much more in limelight than Humanities and some other areas of Main Campus. Have heard this “blamed on” the fact the faculty do not promote or publicize their achievements. Marketing and communication dollars, however, are definitely skewed to HSC, with exception of current enhancement of Honors College.
1.72 “Pigs living high on the hog”. It seems to be an apt description of the UT administrators. Jacobs must bear the responsibility.
1.73 There is no openness or transparency in discussions otherwise we would not be in the third year of contract negotiations. He doesn’t like unions. His actions on the state amendment to abolish workers right to unionize shows his unwillingness to compromise. When you can’t trust your leader, who is supported by a Board of Trustees who are mesmerized by the leader,how can the university attract students who perceive that the university is muddling through.
1.74 Dr. Jacobs does indeed display a “win at all costs” attitude. Some of his dealings, such as the “Stansley Situation” are particularly worrisome and make one question his ethics and integrity. His desire to exclusively promote HSC people to high paying administrative positions, makes one wonder about cronyism.
1.75 Based on the negotiations it looks more like hostage taking.
1.76 Dr. Jacobs has shown many people disrespect and is defensive especially when discussing why he is taking bonuses, very unprofessional; displays a “win at all costs” attitude when it comes to playing dictator with faculty workload and keeping high salary and bonuses
1.77 Employee contracts are blatantly ignored and rules changed arbitrarily.
1.78 Cronyism seems too common at the university, with far too many conflicts of interest overlooked or even encouraged. This is not simply the fault of Dr. Jacobs, but he should do far more to stop it.
1.79 His role in promoting issue 5 was very inappropriate when other University professors remained neutral. He clearly has an anti-union bias.
1.80 Does not exist
1.81 As above
1.82 Did little to assist College of Education
1.83 “win at all costs” is to put it mildly.
1.84 This is a definite asset.
1.85 I have a limited basis to judge this. I assume he is a decent man who simply has failed to communicate with campus constituencies adequately.
1.86 On several occasions has demonstrated clear conflicts of interest in hiring for administrators.
1.87 Makes the impression that not all stakeholders are valued equally. Hasn’t taken any respon- sibility for the impact of increased load and population in classes. This will dilute student experience.
1.88 A disgraceful example of the worst in both areas.
1.89 Faculty have not seen an actual “blue book” budget since shortly after Dr. Jacobs took office. Faculty who have asked for hard numbers have been given the runaround. Now, faculty have found out that Dr. Jacobs was evaluated by the BOT in a private meeting. Where is the integrity in any of this?
1.90 Win at all costs is the only way he leads.
1.91 The President’s positions seem to change with the wind and the politicians in Columbus.
1.92 When an administrator makes decisions without fully considering the opinion based upon ex- perience and expertise of a good portion of the university, there is a lack of trust. Thus, his integrity is brought into question and he definitely displays a “win at all costs” attitude in his communication and approach with faculty/staff.
AREA 1. ETHICS & INTEGRITY 7 1.93 Appears to make rash decisions out of fear.
1.94 Perhaps the University Council will address some of my concerns here. Certainly there are decisions that have been made that are not transparent – hopefully some of that may change.
1.95 I believe Dr. Gold is fair. I trust Dr. Gold. When Dr. Gold makes a decision that I do not agree with I truly believe it is because he was not provided with all the facts or that legal counsel was incorrect. I believe that Dr. Gold is mindful of due process for all parties. I think that the reason he is hesitant to get rid of people is that he goes the “extra mile” to be sure integrity was part of the process.
Area 2 Financial Management
The extent to which the President is able to prepare and manage budgets, be financially accountable, and make sound financial decisions.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 1.98
Faculty Respondents
Is able to understand budgets and financial statements 146 but does not understand how to use them to inform deci- sion making. Does not actively engage with others prior to making financial decisions.
Needs coaching to improve financial skills. Does not en- 95 gage well with other university leaders in assessment of long-range financial needs. Needs improvement in providing financial information to deans or department
Is adept at budget preparation. Is able to correctly in- 54 terpret financial data. Sees the importance of engag- ing with stakeholders prior to making financial decisions. Supports direct reports in financial efforts.
Demonstrates financial accountability. Makes decisions 32 concerning financial matters in consultation with oth- ers. Persuades external constituencies that UT is fiscally well-managed.
Clearly stands out as a leader in financial management 7 and financial accountability. Demonstrates stewardship of financial resources and makes sound capital decisions.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 48
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 2 begin on the following page.
Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 2 (verbatim)
2.1 A $36 million projected deficit says it all!
2.2 Seems to understand how to hide his wants inside the budget. He is not budgeting with best intent for the university and its constituents.
2.3 His financial management is horrible. A recent picture in the University publication showed 5 administrators attending some sort of energy conference in the Middle East. Were they all there for legitimate reasons? Or was it just a junket for them?
2.4 Financial standing degraded a lot and he keeps blaming anyone but himself.
2.5 If the university is truly $36 million in debt then this administration is an utter failure.
2.6 Budget crisis to budge crisis, each worse, and each predictable. Yet no one is ever held respon- sible except the staff who are laid off and the faculty and students who constantly do more with less. Yet, we always have money to invest in additional administrators and staff...and new medical programs. Can we get a budget that could be reviewed and understood!! Bring back the old “Blue Book.”
2.7 Huge amounts of money are spent on external consultants to do work that faculty could do through existing service expectations. Dr. Jacobs hired an expensive consultant on student recruitment, for example, without ever trying to convene a faculty committee or ask for on- campus assistance in managing this issue.
2.8 As president of the institution he need to take responsibility for UT’s financial woes and stop blaming others. Of course there were external factors (i.e. 2008) but he had tried to dodge any personal responsibility.
2.9 Is this a joke? Show us the books, Jake. That would be a start. Quit hiding YOUR Promedica boondoggle. Does anyone actually use that hospital. I guess people will have to since you are killing our once good insurance plan. Be sure to accept your big “longevity bonus”...where’s mine? I’ve been here longer than you have.
2.10 I feel that finances are less than transparent. There always seems to be money for administra- tion and administrative position raises/bonuses (you can see this in the BoT minutes “salary adjustments”), yet faculty have gone for years without raises.
2.11 facts not in evidence
2.12 Read The Blade.
2.13 Why President Jacobs continues to throw taxpayer money down the solar and athletic sinkholes rather than invest it in promoting the UT academic mission and reputation is a great mystery.
2.14 Effectiveness at financial management is difficult to judge. Numbers (especially those reporting on projected deficits) seem constantly shifting and the President is unable to convince others about the true nature of the issue. Many financial issues are extremely non-transparent. For example: is the main campus operation subsidizing the medical/hospital/clinical operation?
2.15 Serious questions are being raised throughout the University - the whole place needs INDE- PENDENT auditing to uncover/undo financial mismanagement and (perhaps) corruption.
2.16 Question quality of recent budget decisions over past few years- has Colleges doing an exercise in futility each year- and then wonders about lack of productivity despite time-wasting exercises
2.17 fire the poor and pay more to the rich, good plan
2.18 A few years ago he announced a plan to cut the budget by $100 million. His continuous cry of “wolf” makes the present real challenge hard to believe. That and his poor spending habits on projects and overpaid administrators with bonuses.
2.19 Current information suggests that the president understands the financial issues of the univer- sity but ignores the data because the data do not fit with his agenda or strategic plan.
2.20 huge deficit, excludes faculty from financial decision making
2.21 I do not know the details of the President’s involvement in all budget decisions. I do know that there are many questions about where certain moneis have gone, and there have not been any transparent answers.
2.22 Budget status seems to be a continuous state of flux but irreversible decisions being made based on these projections.
2.23 He tries to manage through financial panic, always claiming that projected deficits or savings drive decisions, but is never able to produce the data that lead to the numbers he uses. His financial officers make claims but will never provide the data so that independent analyses can be done by Faculty Senate or others. There is no transparency in the financial area with this administration.
2.24 Every year we have a deficit and every year there is some excuse such as ’we planned to reduce enrollment’. Further, his people present budget information to give certain impressions rather than to present a true picture of the budget situation at UT. For example, the idea that administration has cut costs by $10 million since 2009 and the provost’s office has cut costs by $8 million compared to colleges’ cuts of $200K is meant to give the impression that it’s the colleges turn to cut costs. But, most of the $18 million in non-college cuts don’t represent true cuts but rather the shifting around of dollars. For example, 3 college IT directors were fired a couple of years ago. Six months later they were rehired by colleges and paid for using student tech fee monies. Administrative costs fell, college costs increased and nothing real changed. So much of the $18 million is due to similar types of cost shifting or salary recovery (which is not replacing faculty who leave for various reasons).
2.25 I’m concerned that considerable resources have been poorly spent or entirely wasted. Its clear that the health sciences campus is a financial drain on the main campus and the business incubator is misspent money for a university.
2.26 Relies on others as far as I can tell.
2.27 Very poor performance. Treats the main campus as a bank for the medical school.
2.28 We have a $38 million deficit. And yet we take the shortage out on the faculty and staff. I am not a fan of raising tuition but there are times where there is no choice.
2.29 Financial mismanagement is the biggest problem the University currently faces. Decisions on large investments are made without studying the implications for the University as a whole. It is now necessary to cut programs, faculty and staff to cover large non-essential expenses that were planned without or little participation of stakeholders. The University houses a rich range of expertise is that could be used for informed financial planning, but a closed book policy does not allow this expertise to be utilized.
2.30 It is difficult to impossible to ascertain the financial well being of the university. The public (and faculty) are not able to discover the resources or indebtedness of UT. This has been the case since the UT Foundation was established. It is worse now because the Jacobs administration claims that UT cannot afford wage increases for 2-3 years and yet he can hire an (unqualified) provost at $389,000 salary and give him a $100,000 bonus.
AREA 2. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 11 2.31 If the administrators were not allowed quarterly bonuses or the BOT had a backbone - but
that would mean no “financial geeks” running the BOT, we may not have the deficit we have.
2.32 Jumped on the solar bandwagon too soon, without placing proper protocols for use of funds and salaries. The impression is that the president likes the latest flavor of the month.
2.33 Better engagement with faculty through faculty senate could help the university tremendously. While he takes charge, often without appropriate knowledge, there are actual experts on the faculty with national recognition.
2.34 Cannot manage the academic side. Privileges the medical college at the expense of academics. 2.35 Budgetary crisis situation seems to be spinning further and further out of control. 2.36 Does not seem to understand how revenue is generated.
2.37 The budget numbers do not make sense. We have had five years of so-called deficits, but where is the money going? All of the colleges are making money, but some fall into the red when the central adm overhead is applied. Adm overhead is going up and up while the % for academics is going down. The BOT is not watching the financials. They are only listening to Dabney and Jacobs.
2.38 Since your tenure the university continues to loose money. Bad investments are made and money is spent for capital ventures and not academics. Financial planning and spending are not a part of your skill set. You are driving this institution into the ground. No other universities in this state are in the negative financial state that UT is in.
2.39 What about the 1200$/day consultants?
2.40 The answer always seems to be to blame the teachers...never mind the ever-expanding wave of administration. Making A&S into 4 (or was it 5?) separate colleges alone just added to administration
2.41 Well, that depends upon what his agenda is. I assume that this question means managing a PUBLIC univertity with its mission. And that would be providing tax-payer subsidized higher education. Of course, I may have “got” this all wrong.
2.42 Appreciate his being able to make tough decisions
2.43 His opinion of how financial budgets are determined by what he decides.
2.44 This entire administration is a cesspool of mismanagement.
2.45 Hecontinuestoclaimthereisahugebudgetshortfall,butcontinuestoinvestinoutsideprojects. He is unwilling to clearly explain the balance budget or provide documentation.
2.46 Maintaining bonuses for administrators while cutting other aspects of the university send a message about who is being taken care of and who isn’t considered. It negatively affects morale and sets up and us vs them mentality
2.47 The University is in deep financial crisis, due in part to a focus on non-academic endeavors. This will lead to terminations and a serious degrading of morale among faculty and staff.
2.48 The president repeatedly rewards senior administrators, while at the same time departments across the university are experiencing significant financial hardship. And, he justifies it by saying that it is necessary to retain good administrators. But....who brings in the money? When was the last time that an adminstrator received a grant or generated revenue by teaching a class??
2.49 Too great a part of the budget is spend on high-level administrators whereas faculty and staff positions are being cut. Too much money is spend on cosmetic changes rather than on upkeep of academic positions.
2.50 This is obvious. 100,000 dollar bonuses when the university has a projected 36 million dollar deficit. I consider this behavior just downright immoral.
2.51 Some questionable financial decisions have occurred.
2.52 Budget issues, such as the long-term financial value of graduate education, is frequently over- looked or ignored.
2.53 Nobody knows where the money is spent, the shortages due to lower state support are strongly exaggerated; no evidence of planning for even known changes in levels of state funding
2.54 Does not engage, makes unilateral decisions that are not in keeping with mission of an institu- tion of higher education’s purpose
2.55 Decision-making is usually opaque (black box).
2.56 when the state cuts the budget by 10%m Jacobs demands a 10% across the board cut. Mean- while, the state share of university budget is about 17%. The budget shortfall is 10% of 17%, not of the whole budget.
2.57 See above on sequential crises.
2.58 Please see #2 above.
2.59 The funneling of funds for pet projects for the medical school has been detrimental to the functioning of the main campus.
2.60 The rules for finance seem to change each year.
2.61 How far are we in th hole?
2.62 Several failed investments have surfaced recently that have impacted the entire university. More investment on the main campus is needed.
2.63 The members of the university have no idea what the budget might be - even within a college or department. The is no printed budget; there is no on-line budget; there is no transparency in the budget — unless you know all the account numbers. The budget process is shameful
2.64 He should be given credit for making UT running as of now. 2.65 I believe that he is making the best of a difficult budget climate. 2.66 We do not appear to be doing well financially.
2.67 The administrators mismanage the finances. They should penalize the consultants they hire who give them directions, but they always come after faculty and whip them lash them ( just they do to horses so they should run faster) and ask faculty should do more.
2.68 Every year we are bleeding. The president has to take responsibility for this chronic financial problem; it isn’t the legislature, or the governor, or OBOR that is to blame for the financial problems that UT faces. Since Dr. Jacobs has been president, we have not strategically invested in areas of the university that have demonstrated success. Instead, across-the-board cuts have been made year after year, regardless of the success of the programs or units. Even when units are spared, the threat that is rendered during the budget process is intimidating, and squelches enthusiasm, and causes units and programs to become defensive, rather than creative. The
recent headlines in The Blade of consultant shenanigans is not helpful to the dialog on campus, and the overall strategic success of the organization. The nepotism with Mr. Stansley cannot be overlooked. None of this is helpful to an organization that is $36 million in the red. All of the responsibility for the financial prosperity or losses of the institution must ultimately rest at the president’s desk.
2.69 Teaching loads for many faculty have been too light for too long. It is good to see that someone is addressing this. However, the “one size fits all” approach to this does not enhance confidence. Further, these seems to be a great deal of waste left at UT. A glaring example is the expensive, but little used Nitschke Tech. Transfer Center.
2.70 36M in the red. Nothing else really needs to be said here.
2.71 The academic enterprise makes the money so staff there will have to work harder. Does this make any sense?
2.72 President Jacobs maintains extremely tight and strict budget control. However, all of the control is concentrated in the upper administration. Deans have very little flexibility over financial matters within their colleges; hence their felxibility and effectiveness are definitely limited. This in turn has a very adverse effect on management of university resources. There is way too much micro-managing of finances that goes on at this institution. Give the deans specific financial goals and then let them manage their finances their own way. Finally, money gets spent for a lot of “pet projects” that really do not contribute that positively to the overall mission of the University (for example, the hiring of two individuals at over a $1000 a day for business consulting).
2.73 Our budget speaks for itself. Does not seem to understand the down-stream implications (financial or otherwise) of his decisions and does not consider any informed input. Also, seems to have no sense at all about the message he communicates when he negotiates extraordinary compensation for him and his friends while telling students, faculty, and staff we can’t make basic expenditures.
2.74 See #3.
2.75 Fundraising is a real weakness. Mitigating: tough climate, especially in this region.
2.76 Financial transparency at this university is non-existent.
2.77 budget deficits are growing UT officials say $13M deficit develops in budget for 2013. 11/26/2012 Toledo Blade. Other articles mention the deficit is projected at $30M for 2014
2.78 The public face put the present financial situation is that it is a crisis. It was at least three years in the making. The University administration was continuously aware that they had a structural problem and did little to resolve it. Clueless, oblivious, waiting to spring a move that would surprise the union leadership in the union - faculty senate ??? grad council ???. The reason for the lack of anticipation is not clear. However, the lack of anticipation is startling. “Meets expectations” would be a routine warning of the impeding issues. A “role model” would hit on a strategy to lift the University beyond the difficulties and use it as an opportunity to grow.
2.79 He has made a large number of extremely poor investment choices that has cost the university greatly and he has allowed “special deals” for friends, and family members of administrators that are not financially responsible. He also had discouraged any evaluation of these decisions so he can learn from them and prevent bad decisions from reoccurring in the future.
2.80 He doesn’t really consult others. An example is the idea of minimum class sizes- that was developed without faculty input. It may be fiscally sound, but he did not consider non-economic and long-tern consequences.
AREA 2. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 14 2.81 The success of the University requires a closer look at financial management. There is currently
very little investment into research and faculty development.
2.82 Not very familiar with this, but the University has managed to avoid crises observed at other institutions.
2.83 Financial burdens are not shared by administrators
2.84 We have been told the university is $36 million in the hole. How did that happen and at the same time why are we building a $36 million dollar Simulation Center that will require tremendous overhead to operate, maintain, and update? At the same time, enrollments are down, staff are being cut, faculty positions are not being filled, and everyone is being asked to do more with and for less.
2.85 The institution is in the red and facing more and more challenges. Besides cutting funds, freezing hiring and increasing demands to do more with less no any other steps for improvement were ever taken as a consequence of central decision making preservation.
2.86 The financial management of UT is completely opaque. I think the only reasonable response at this time is to have the state come in and conduct a forensic audit.
2.87 Had made some very difficult and unpopular financial decisions to ensure the sustainability of the university.
2.88 It is not clear why the University spent $1 million on a new telescope. It is not clear how we ended up on the hook for all of the costs of the simulation center when Promedica was touted as covering half the costs. The projected budget deficit is of great concern. How was an amount this large anticipated and planned for in advance?
2.89 Dr Jacobs is applying a business model to higher education. The model is misguided and will ultimately fail.
2.90 The budget is a black hole. How about paying for an external audit? The lack of transparency only fuels suspicion on the part of the faculty. How about firing this fellow who charges his expensive bow ties to his UT expense account? What kind of a message does the President think that it sends to faculty, students & staff. Come on! Time to wake up and get real!
2.91 Obviously it is difficult to manage a university in the current economic climate with decreasing resources from the state and federal authorities. Some decisions are bound to make some people unhappy. One problem in the medical school is that academic salaries are not necessarily tied to teaching of students. For example, the musculoskeletal exam was taught by family medicine and internal medicine preceptors. Not one orthopedist was present!
2.92 Again, due to lack of transparency with admin, I do not know if finanicial decision were sound.
2.93 Enrollment drops, retention drops, financial picture is bleaker and yet administrators remain and are promoted. Faculty lines are lost.
2.94 I have the sense that his administration is top heavy and campuses have some unnecessary redundancies in personnel and departments/services. Operating policies reflect a bent to micro- management of Colleges.
2.95 Cuts out the workers in favor of high paid consultants and excessive vice presidents of every- thing. The University would run just as well with any executive above a dean and we could save millions and reduce the deficit. Buildings seem to be more important than faculty and staff to run the University. If all else fails then do it by distance learning (The salvation for all personnel expenses). Appears to siphon monies from the Main Campus for projects for the Hospital, Medical School and the Health Science Camus in general.
2.100 2.101 2.102
2.103 2.104
2.106 2.107 2.108
2.109 2.110
2.112 2.113
Again, he appears to make financial decisions without informing the faculty why they are needed, what they are trying to accomplish or where UT is trying to go. It is unclear to this faculty member where UT is trying to go financially or what are actual financial state is. Adding up the numbers from the strategic plan spreadsheet shows that UT is not in debt but is making money, so when Dr. Jacobs says that we have a $36 million shortfall, it is unclear what he is talking about.
Where’s the $$$$$$$$? The lack of accountability of tax payers money, my money is staggering. Rather than cut to the fat at the top, Jacobs is now cutting into the bone of faculty and their resources.
Unsuccessful with budgets when the faculty have to do more and more with less and bonuses are still taken
Rewarding the top administrators while leaving support staff go is not a good use of funds. Money has been wasted on the HSC and the main campus seems to be paying for it.
He is good at directing money to his white male nucleus at UT
High bonuses in the form of 401s while faculty are still underpaid and while cutting programs
Dr.Jacobs has been very irresponsible with the university’s money. He has given $10 dollars away to start-up companies, and when asked about why he gave so much, he said that for businesses, that amount of money is “a drop in the bucket.” Perhaps so, but for UT, it’s a lot of money, and it’s reprehensible that he’s increasing class sizes because of financial strain, on the one hand, while handing out millions to businesses, on the other. Why isn’t he being held accountable for his misdeeds?
Did little to assist College of Education
How many millions are we in the whole now? Why aren’t administration heads rolling? To be giving out $100,000 bonuses to a tax payer supported administrator is disgusting.
How can a budget be $30 million, then $36 million then $41 million short? This shows a lack of any ability to forecast and budget. For what he is being paid, there should be some better accountability at this point.
This is a definite strength The university currently has a deficit of $35 million dollars.
Dr. Jacobs obviously has a plan. It just has not been articulated clearly to anyone. As debt and deficits rise, so do administrator salaries
See above.
Thinks of UT as a personal inherited family owned fiefdom. Completely incapable of making equitable distribution of capital. Biased in a heavy handed lopsided manner if favor of medical campus and running a venture capital fund. This funding is generated on the back of under- graduate tuition and by starving other parts of UT. Wants to fund for-profit companies from student tuition money.
The university has had unaddressed budget shortfalls for years. They are now trying to address it in one fell swoop after ignoring for years.
Bankrupting the university to build up the medical school. Disgraceful
We have been in greater and greater debt since the merger. There seems to be a spending problem.
2.114 2.115 2.116 2.117
2.119 2.120
2.121 2.122
Can’t explain specifics about different items in budget, what caused deficit, etc.
There is no accountability. Data provided are wrong or skewed in a manipulative manner.
His budget knowledge-reflects around buildings and money to MDs and UTMC.
Every year since the president took over this institution, we have had one budget crisis after another.
We would not be in our current predicament if more active financial decisions were made. Some have speculated that past decisions were designed to get us into our current dire situation. I sincerely hope that this is not true.
It’s a difficult time to be a financial manager of anything. Could more be done in effectively networking with smaller outlying county hospitals?
It appears that the university has a budget and meets that budget. However, allocation of resources is considered by many to be quite questionable in terms of the academic aspects of the university.
Some decisions are made without input from faculty
Financial matters are not presented with transparency. This leads to distrust between faculty and administration. It would be helpful to know how much of this is controlled and manipulated by the board of trustees.
A key component moving forward is establishing a contractual agreement with the faculty union. While it may be possible that unions will become a thing of the past under the current Ohio administration, that may not happen. In the meantime, leadership is needed at UT now. Faculty have been without a contract for several years. Productive, untenured faculty have not received a raise for several years, and they are discouraged. The only way that they can change their financial situation is to look elsewhere for a position, and if they have active research funding, they will look really attractive in the current climate. We need action, not waiting.
Area 3 Leadership
The extent to which the administrator demonstrates insight and motivation, and the extent of benefit provided to others through demonstrated service behaviors.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Needs Improvement: Meets Expectations:
Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.26
Faculty Respondents
Shows no interest or ability in providing leadership in any 113 aspect of the job. Projects are often not accomplished or problems resolved because of this person’s inability to lead.
Shows some interest and ability to take on a leadership 112 role. However, needs a good deal of development to do so effectively.
Usually takes on a leadership role in some aspect of job, 79 either within the team or by providing additional exper- tise in an area that gives extra value to the university or community.
Others recognize some benefit because of this person’s 34 leadership. Provides encouragement and guidance to di- rect reports in a respectful manner. Shows vision in ap- proaching long-term problems.
Clearly stands out as a leader in multiple aspects of job. 20 Others rely heavily on this person to provide inspira- tion and expertise. Adapts style to situation and con- stituency to bring out the best in both.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 24
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 3 begin on the following page.
Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 3 (verbatim)
3.1 He can’t lead because of lack of trust.
3.2 His leadership is dictatorial. His arrogance is unbounded.
3.3 Shows interest but no ability to provide leadership. Nothing has been accomplished under him, and the problems keep accumulating.
3.4 Leads by dictate and demands obedience. Needs to consult others, particularly those who have different points of view.
3.5 I think he wants to be leader. He just does not know how to lead intelligent creative employees. He is using a model of leadership that the military rejected generations ago. He needs to em- power and facilitate. LISTEN–he has a highly talented and motivated faculty and staff...when they question they are not being obstructionist, they are raising well thought out concerns that should be addressed.
3.6 It’s not even clear to me what Dr. Jacobs views as his job. His speeches often argue against the importance of higher education and downplay the significance of faculty and the classroom. It seems to me a university leader would be an advocate for the work of universities.
3.7 He is an elitist leader who shows no solidarity with or understanding for faculty and staff. He seems thrive on conflict and focuses on winning battles rather than making UT more successful and serving our students. He acceptance of bonuses while staff are being laid off is totally unacceptable and irresponsible. He is a shows very weak leadership skills and has not earned respect from his colleagues.
3.8 Where are those tenure files for the library faculty who went up for tenure two years ago? Where is the money from student fees that are supposed to go directly to the library? “Real- located”...remember that one? Nice leadership, Jake.
3.9 Dr. Schmoll advocates for the college’s needs; however, she occassionally patronizes junior faculty, administrative assistants, etc.
3.10 Why would I consider him a successful leader? The university environment is not a medical facility.
3.11 He doesn’t appear to know how to interact with a faculty. Again, problems have been ongoing here since his arrival at UT and he doesn’t appear to have a clue on how to resolve them (at best) or a desire to solve them (at worst).
3.12 He inspires and rewards incompetence. Students are corrupted by his business model.
3.13 Exerts leadership in various and many places. He is known as a “micro-manager” which dilutes effectiveness at leadership at the institutional level.
3.14 He is leading UT down the toilet. The University is divided, morale couldn’t be lower, there is no leadership, and politics determines every outcome.
3.15 Do not observe productive activity this administrative team- and he is the (ineffective) leader
3.16 meritorius: The Student Travel Abroad Program (not firing Sammy Spann, a no-brainer deci- sion),
3.17 dictatorship is not the same thing as leadership
3.18 The problem solving approach recently employed by Jacobs can best be described as “dicta- torship”. Unfortunately, when not all aspects are regarded objectively, such dictatorship can be extremely harmful to the majority of people affected.
3.19 Worst president in my quarter century at UT. Doesn’t understand academia and shows no interest in learning. Hires unqualified cronies for high-paying positions. Doesn’t seek input from knowledgeable constituents before making decisions. Has managed support staff through fear and intimidation and has driven faculty morale to record lows. Absolutely horrible leader.
3.20 I wish he would lead by example.
3.21 Shows enormous interest in taking on a leadership role but has little to no interest in others thoughts or opinions, indeed he leads without noticing whether anyone is following.
3.22 With all the flux, cannot consider him an effective leader. He expects faculty and staff to be “yes men” and has surrounded himself with such persons. I doubt he has an opportunity to listen to other perspectives without baggage associated with his obvious disregard of certain individual’s opinions. This has prevaded through the upper administration ranks.
3.23 Supports his own administration but fails to lead faculty or students.
3.24 It is not possible to lead without understanding the institution the president is supposed to lead.
3.25 Tons of documents are created by departments, and before they can get submitted for review, a decision from the Provost and President are announced. (leaked at times) which shows they don’t give a darn about what faculty have to say.
3.26 He loves to see himself on video. Why not allow other distinguished faculty from both campuses an opportunity to provide insight into their research or service projects? The spotlight can move. This is demonstrated in every basketball game. It swings all ways!
3.27 Leadership is by fear and intimidation.
3.28 Faculty is in siege mode. Students are choosing other places to go.
3.29 He leads, just not in a postive direction.
3.30 For the most part, have not felt inspired nor confident about the expertise demonstrated by this leader.
3.31 His leadership style is fire, ready, aim.
3.32 Leadership and dictatorship are two different things and he conveys his abilities to dictate not lead. Leadership requires good communication and listening skills which he lacks.
3.33 Since I arrived here, I have seen many projects started, widely advertised, and then completely abandoned. I thought this was typical of third world country, I was mistaken.
3.34 He is not a leader at all. He does not provide any support or leadership to the faculty. While we have not had a raise in almost 3 years - “the chosen” get large bonuses. If WE (UT) are in such financial pinch - why are only some of us pinched? why doesn’t he lead by example?
3.35 Consider Students first. Our website it indicates we have small courses. It is time to tell the truth that we do not have small class sizes, dl courses are excected higher enrollment, why. DL course require more work than classroom courses. I guess we are now expected to just give texts. Communiction classes must grade for grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, etc. This is time consumming.
3.36 Shows leadership, but does not provide expertise where academia is concerned. 3.37 He has a tendency to demoralize faculty with little response to their needs.
3.38 The President has provided leadership for economic development and the clinical enterprise, but has not focused on undergraduate or graduate enrollment on the main campus, particularly in the non-STEM areas.
3.39 This is my 36th year as a faculty member at UT. Faculty morale is at AN ALL TIME LOW !!! This is a direct consequence of the attutude, behaviors, and failures of Dr. Jacobs and his administration (and the BOT that routinely rubber stamps everything that he does). Dr. Jacobs does not understand what it takes to be an effectively leader of a university community!
3.40 His idea of leadership is telling others what they should do. 3.41 Dr. Jacobs is the annointed dictator. 3.42 Does not appear to have university or public best interests at heart. 3.43 needs to be recalled 3.44 Motivation by fear. 3.45 The morale at UT has never been lower.
3.46 micro-manages to a degree unheard of at this level of leadership - conveys very trust in those working with and for him; dictatorial and authoritarian - this is not the armed forces or a surgery suite
3.47 University Presidents are graded on their ability to attract outside beneficiaries and improve the University endowments. Instead of improving our financial situation, a narrow minded approach to improving one campus at the expense of the other has been instituted.
3.48 Has bought into the rhetoric of we are an economic engine without really asking why that has not been true in the past even though we have been graduating students for over 100 years sin all sorts of fields.
3.49 the “others” in this case would be top level administrators and the UT hospital
3.50 As mentioned above, the kind of leadership he displays is not the kind of problem resolution that UT as a whole can afford.
3.51 Though his style is an issue for me personally, the results are acceptable. The workload issues that are raw among faculty are a reality of higher ed today and I applaud his pushing to get faculty to take responsibility for their teaching responsibilities.
3.52 We are not working together as a university and moving forward in a positive direction
3.53 He is respectful when you meet with him one on one.
3.54 As a rank and file faculty member, it appears that Dr. Jacobs is out of touch with our customers, the students. He does not seem to understand the needs of the contemporary student, or the manner in which quality interactions with our customers should occur. Students (customers) sense this. They sense that our business is floundering and we lack direction from our leadership. Maxwell describes level 5 leadership as someone whom people want to follow, because of who they are, what they’ve done for the organization, and what they’ve done for the individuals in the organization. This stuff isn’t rocket science. Its just establishing and maintaining good relationships with the workforce and customers through genuine interactions. This is clearly missing from our president.
3.55 The President should lead by example rather than dictate. I find it appalling that he collects huge bonus checks every year while expecting every other unit to reduce staffing and costs.
AREA 3. LEADERSHIP 21 3.56 Leads from behind, has never stood up front and taken his lumps. Blames others when his
plans fail.
3.57 President Jacobs’ appears to have no clue as to how an academic institution should be led. His idea of a model for leadership is a “my way or the highway” approach. In an academic culture, that is not an effective leadership model.
3.58 Again, a strength but weakened a bit by having too many irons in the fire.
3.59 It is not so much that he does not provide leadership- it is how he uses leadership. There is no incentive to include ownership by the stakeholders.
3.60 he could have handled issues this past year so much better. if you need to cut costs, come to the faculty and tell us what’s going on and ask us to make sacrifices.
3.61 I believe that Pres Jacobs typically demonstrates good leadership skills on a “university- community” wide scale. However, within the university, and drilling down further, e.g. Colleges, departments, faculty and staff - leadership skills are lacking.
3.62 He leads, but people follow out of fear, not buy-in. His chosen few are rewarded for their loyalty.
3.63 Leadership would be more effective if there was a more positive relationship and communication with the faculty.
3.64 Excellent leader, highly professional
3.65 Has been unwilling to make make change in leadership.
3.66 The Provost overly micromanages things that should be handled at the Chair level. One example is annual faculty performance reviews. Performance cannot accurately be captured on some spreadsheet or list, yet the Provost and other upper administrators think a simple number score can be arrived at to compare a wide range of faculty skills, accomplishments, and duties. There are too many intangibles and too much diversity. The Chairs are the ones who most clearly know what the faculty and staff are doing and if they are doing things well. The Provost/Dean should focus on performance of the Chairs and Associate Deans. In the past few years the Provost hired two Chairs that have proven to be disastrous - Ob/Gyn and Phys/Pharm - and nothing significant was done to rectify the problem. Fortunately one has left the institution.
3.67 one of the strongest leaders I have seen on many years at UT
3.68 Needs to stand up to the administration more on behalf of faculty, staff, and students.
3.69 I no longer work closely with Dr. Jacob but I have a great deal of repect in his leadership skills and the respectful manner her treats those who report to him.
3.70 His leadership role should be more as CEO but often micromanages which can take away from value his office serves.
3.71 The President does not appear to want in his willingness to lead.
3.72 Dr Jacobs listens to the Board but not to the faculty.
3.73 Have we not learned by now that central planning does not work? The attitude of the ad- ministration and by extension the President there is no longer any meaningful role for deans and chairs. I agree that there are plenty of under performing faculty but the one size fits all approach will have a disastrous effect on faculty morale, at least on the Main Campus. Work with chairs and deans to reward productive faculty and retire under-performing faculty. UT
will no longer be able to hire good faculty because teaching loads are one or two courses less at UT’s competitors. It could well bleed into the fall enrollment and then we truly are all in trouble.
3.74 A clear vision is presented consistently and passionately - but it is his personal vision without the support of the students or faculty.
3.75 He is an autocratic ruler of the domain. His word is the only word that counts.
3.76 His leadership style is more akin to a dictator than to a leader.
3.77 Adversarial, autocratic,and arrogant
3.78 has done a pretty good job being out in front and engaging many constituencies in leadership efforts. Through town hall meetings, website interviews, etc.
3.79 Dr. Jacobs is not a leader, he is a dictator
3.80 I do not look to President Jacobs for leadership but as an example of how I would not act as president myself. I think that he is disconnected from education itself - he should spend a semester in the classroom teaching a large intro class and then he will really know what professors have to deal with.
3.81 He is no leader
3.82 Tends to bully.
3.83 I have a complete lack of confidence in Dr. Jacobs. Working under his flawed leadership has become a demoralizing experience.
3.84 Did little to assist College of Education
3.85 top heavy
3.86 He has ruined this University that I love. We are a subsidiary of the Medical School. Now they will raid us to start a Dentistry school.
3.87 One key measure of leadership is the moral on campus. It is at the lowest point that I have ever seen in many decades. We are constantly told that the university has a serious budget shortfall, yet administrative decisions for some parts of the campus do not reflect this (SIMS, Dental School, administrative raises, etc.) We are told that the administration believes in shared governance, yet repeated decisions are made with little or no imput, and worse, not constitutions are being changed to explicitly state that Dr. Jacobs has ultimate control on campus. All of this belittles stateholders and destroys moral on campus.
3.88 There is absolutely no confidence among anyone I know at the University that Dr. Jacobs is able to steer this institution in the correct direction.
3.89 Improving - still seems to like to micromanage department chairs and support staff without input from faculty.
3.90 Dr. Jacobs is, unquestionably a leader. Leadership, however, requires the cooperation and trust of those being led. Dr. Jacobs has failed to establish or develop positive relationships with the campus community.
3.91 Absolutely lacks moral fiber to lead. Cares only for his own compensation, bonuses and benefits. Will happily destroy careers of his underlings if they come in his way. His nature on several occasions has been demonstrated to be vindictive to individual juniors reporting to him. Will not tolerate alternative viewpoints.
3.93 3.94 3.95 3.96
3.97 3.98 3.99
3.101 3.102 3.103
3.104 3.105
3.107 3.108
His “leadership” style consists of micromanagement. He doesn’t treat the personnel as intel- ligent professionals (who desire nothing more than a chance to do a good job). He seems to think of them (us) as lazy bums who have to be watched at all times.
Clearly has a vision and is passionate about that vision. See all of the above. Improvement needed in this category is a consequence of the issues discussed above.
While he has a vision that would be a good thing for UT, the way he has gone about it has made almost everything completely negative. What happened to becoming a top tiered research institution?
The message is clear: “You can talk, but I don’t have to listen.” Inability to lead. Only able to dictate and overpower. Morale at the University has never been lower.
The president’s view of leadership seems to be that he makes the decisions, and we must follow. But no one is following anymore. The faculty and staff are so demoralized that they have no passion for the institution anymore. The most important aspect of a leader is the ability to get others to follow. This president lacks this ability.
Once again, he has put his heart into this. Does not understand that growth is needed to survive.
I truly appreciate the leadership demonstrated but Dr. Gold rarely seems to be happy; does he enjoy his job?
Again, in many respects, Dr. Gold exceeds expectations, but I cannot in the terms of this survey say he “shows vision in approaching long-term problems.” My collegues and I don’t know what the vision is.
Morale on campus has not been this low since Vic Kapur was in office. As mentioned above, Dr. Jacobs appears to be very decisive, but the strategic planning, business decisions, etc. do not favor important components of the academic side of campus. When his choices and decisions are questioned, he does not appear to care what anyone else thinks. Like a good surgeon, he makes decisions cutting here and there, but with little consideration of the “whole.”
Frustration exists over reactionary leadership–reacting when a problem blows up instead of solving the problem before it occurs.
See comments in items 2 and 3.
I think Dr. Gold has clearly demonstrated how to role model leadership in an environment of lots of external and internal pressures. From my perspective he presents a united front with Provost Scarborough, President Jacobs and others. I do not know and I do not need to know if everyone truly “likes each other’s ideas”. I am grateful that if there is any issue they keep it to themselves. I appreciate Dr. Gold’s consistent and steady leadership during the turnover of Provosts.
Area 4 Responsibility and Accountability
The extent of responsibility for persons, data, activities, resources and outcomes.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations:
Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.26
Faculty Respondents
Becomes defensive when given feedback about perfor- 120 mance. Frequently displays unprofessional behavior. Of- ten assigns responsibility to others without giving them the authority to act.
Cannot be depended upon to hold others accountable 76 for assignments. May occasionally display unprofessional behavior or make inappropriate remarks that harm the university’s reputation.
Usually follows through with projects and decisions. 96 Acts in a professional manner when dealing with others.
Can always be depended upon to follow through with 25 projects and decisions. Gracefully receives feedback from others.
Holds self and others accountable for decision outcomes. 21 Assigns authority commensurate with level of account- ability. A demonstrated leader in modeling professional behavior and demeanor to others.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 44
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 4 begin on the following page.
Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 4 (verbatim)
4.1 He views himself as only accountable to himself.
4.2 His course of action has consistently downgraded the university standings. Nevertheless, none of administration bears any responsibility. The have fired lots of useful staff and never hold any of highly paid administrators accountable.
4.3 Takes on responsibilities beyond capabilities rather than consult and delegate. What account- ability? We are told that he has the answers and when we question him we are disgruntled faculty.
4.4 The buck stops here...mean failure are laid at the doorsteps of faculty and staff...note faculty and staff...NOT SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS. I watched two provosts become weaker and weaker because they could not make any decisions without checking with President Jacobs. Power needs to be devolved down to the individual level with individual accountability. Not exercised from Mt Olympus with individual accountability for policies and decisions that were made in U-Hall.
4.5 Dr. Jacobs responds to faculty concerns in a hostile manner.
4.6 He seems to have learned nothing from a string of conflicts. He acknowledges little personal responsibly for UT’s current problems and continually points fingers elsewhere.
4.7 Who gives himself a $200,000 Christmas bonus on the heels of firing (sorry, “reassigning”) hospital staff who are likely living check-to-check? Jake does. Who hires a “fall guy” Dean (Dean Lee) and then later throws that Dean “under the bus” (remember that?)? Jake does. Who devalues the faculty’s research role on this campus, mandating that they teach more courses even though we don’t have enough students to fill the seats? Jake does. Perhaps Jake should invent a most vital position of “Vice Provost for Enrollment Management” to take care of this problem. Wait, he already did. That’s working out well. Who watches while our athletic programs are subject to betting scandals and internal scandal and then gives the athletic director a big raise (rememeber the “financial crisis”?) and a contract extension? Jake does. Who fires a well-meaning athletic department employee because she pointed out that girlfriends of athletic department personnel were traveling on the university dime (remember the “financial crisis”?)? Jake does. Who would keep their faculty union from seeing the accounting with regard to the “financial crisis”? Jake does. Never once did admit any oversight...No accountability. I suppose his decisions are “between God and him”...remember that one too?
4.8 I have no information or direct experience from which to judge his accountability. He appears to value the opinions of the Board of Trustees, but I don’t think he values the opinions of faculty.
4.9 When questioned about his actions, he does nothing but become defensive and dismissive. No one is allowed to question his decisions. He could improve greatly if he would only listen. He should remember that no student comes to UT because he is the president. They come for the programs - this equals faculty & staff.
4.10 Not once has President Jacobs ever admitted a mistake. He instead has created a marketing division that produces spin to cover every mis-step in his record. Students faculty, staff and the community-at-large laugh at the pathetic stories spun by the current squad of UT External Affairs “cosmetologists.”
4.11 Priorities–both at the institutional- and at the programmatic-levels change so frequently and quickly that follow through is impossible. Frequent and rapid organizational changes lead con- stituencies uncertain of the present and future direction of the institution and their programs. With a constantly shifting foundation, nothing seems solid.
AREA 4. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 26 4.12 Significant financial mismanagement which is destroying UT.
4.13 Do not trust nor respect but will try to follow (but only because is authority not because of intrinsic motivation). Seems selfish and does not seem genuine in concern for this University community.
4.14 The BOT has made him responsible to no one.
4.15 He just tosses off criticism of decisions gone bad (enrollment drop greater than expectations) and blames other - then hires a high-priced consultant rather than listening to those on campus with experience and knowledge.
4.16 This is probably the worst aspect of the president’s personality. He has not been held account- able for any of the current problems. He claims that he deserves a bonus every year because he “takes all the risks”. I find it darkly humorous that it is not his job at risk when budget cuts are put in place. It is not his standing in the larger academic/research community that is placed at risk when he installs a hatchet man to disassemble the research capabilities of the university.
4.17 Some of the president’s appointments are hard to understand. He seems to prefer people without experience or credentials. The recommendations of search committees are too often spurned.
4.18 blames faculty for university’s problems
4.19 The president has shown no intention to accept responsibility and/or accountability for poten- tial negative outcomes of recent decisions. Instead, short term number games are held high with no consideration of long term effects. Some of the “videos” about the recent rules/changes borderline ridicule faculty. I’ve heard them compared to “communist propaganda”, and while I would still consider it shy of this, it does bear some truth.
4.20 Feedback not received gracefully on occasion.
4.21 Doesn’t honor his commitments, won’t own up to mistakes, won’t take input from anyone outside his circle of cronies into serious consideration before making decisions, and picks fights with faculty that are wholly unnecessary.
4.22 He doesn’t fire his people - they get moved to a new position and then give a raise. The only people who every get fired for someone’s mistake are the women working for the men who were in charge.
4.23 There seems to be no sense of responsibility or accountability for the major problems the university has, or the number of mistakes made to date by this administration. Every mistake is presented as a successful accomplishment of an a prior goal. I am not convinced.
4.24 He appears to “hide behind” the Board of Trustee, rather than taking responsibility for his decisions. Books are closed and there is no way to hold the administration accountable for any of its decisions.
4.25 Recent event in the HIA area demonstrates her carelessness and lack of confrontation. Demon- strates her failure to work with faculty and department chairs.
4.26 The grand experiment of the JHCEHSHS was imposed on many to save money and restructure. The new door signs were up before anyone even knew there was going to be one college instead of two. Bad decision.
4.27 Gross expenditures to paid consultants in attempt to make up for the lack f qualifications in senior administrators. Problem is, the highly paid consultants don’t appear to be qualified either.
4.28 He has rendered the deans and chairs irrelevant. Micromanaging. Decisions being made at the highest level with no real idea how they will turn out in the places where the students and faculty actually take classes.
4.29 Absolutely on target. This fits him well.
4.30 It is never the fault of administration, it is the faculties fault. This is the message he conveys. Poor financial investments or decisions are made with no accountability from his office. Money goes to administrators and friends at the expense of students and academics.
4.31 He does whatever he wants and no matter what are the outcomes, the BOT is deaf to the complaints of students, faculty and staff.
4.32 Really, though, this is hard to judge as the BoT seems to adopt a “whatever you want” attitude with Dr. Jacobs.
4.33 Well, consistency in incompetence could be worse. At least I know what to epect.
4.34 Does not always follow thru with appropiate action. Tends to let hot / tough issues dissipate unless there is continual demand to engage
4.35 Not so much “displays unprofessional behavior”, but he definitely becomes defensive when challenged.
4.36 I cannot understand choosing an academic provost with little academic background. There has to be more to managing academics than just balancing the books at a major university. In addition, his rejoinder to criticism of the high consulting fees paid to hired management personnel is that their salaries are competitive, yet the same courtesy does not seem to apply to assessing the salaries of faculty.
4.37 He follows through with decisions, but decisions have not taken into consideration the faculty and rest of the university.
4.38 The President needs to be held accountable for the decline in enrollment and the impact that the lack of hiring in any areas other than STEM have had exacerbating this enrollment decline.
4.39 The senior administrators, lead by Dr. Jacobs, call all of the shots! Obviously, based on the current financial situation, some really bad decisions have been made. Yet, there is no evidence that those responsible are being held accountable. In fact, they are repeated paid “bonuses”, when at the same time the university is experiencing serious financial difficulties.
4.40 Deans and Chairs have less and less authority. Too much micro-managing is occurring in all decisions.
4.41 Dr. Jacobs would just fire you. People were afraid to tell him that changing the UT fan chant from GO Toledo to go big blue was a stupid idea. This is just one silly example.
4.42 Does not take responsibility for decisions that have put the university at risk. Is in no way accountable to constituencies for decisions that affect them. Refuses to communicate.
4.43 Little openness to feedback 4.44 no accountability to the university constituent groups. 4.45 Accountable to himself. 4.46 Please see #2 above.
4.47 The president’s voice is the only voice; his key players parrot his vision for the university; there seems to be a sense of fear on the part of those who work with and for him; a strong sense that no one at the table is going against the edicts of the president.
4.48 Never accepts blame for the misgivings of his narrow approach.
4.49 It’s always someone else’s fault. The clown with the bowtie keeps writing absurd reasons for actions. Enrollment goes up: we’re geniuses. Enrollment goes down: we planned for it. They assume we must be stupid.
4.50 He meets with people but it is unclear how much feedback he received actually is considered seriously. Most of his responses are either defensive of his plans or not really understands what is being said. A good example is his response to the Faculty Senate/Graduate Council Open letter. He and provosts responded quickly with two days. But it is unclear how effective such responses are.
4.51 A strength for him
4.52 I don’t sense that he takes responsibility for the shortcomings of the university as his own.
4.53 Administrators make decision on investments and when those enterprises lose money, they try to penalize the faculty by increasing their workload to make up for the lost revenue.
4.54 I don’t sense that Dr. Jacobs holds himself accountable for the miserable relationship he has with the faculty (in general), or the financial fiasco that we face at present. Every year we are faced with financial ruin. How can that continue if the CEO is truly responsible for making improvements to the organization? If we need to divest ourselves of certain loss leaders, Dr. Jacobs, in consultation with the faculty, should make that decision. By abdicating this responsibility, he has made the entire organization anemic.
4.55 Conceals loses in ’investing’ off campus - in the real world, Silicon Valley came from the engi- neers, not CEOs or administrators.
4.56 President Jacobs does not receive feedback gracefully when it does not agree with his pre- conceived ideas. At least in his dealing with faculty he projects only arrogance, hubris, and complete disrespect.
4.57 Department chairs are used as scapegoats and given no real authority to do their jobs (I am NOT a department chair). There is absolutely no accountability at the higher levels of administration; we are threatened if we even dare to ask questions. Retaliation is seems to be acceptable and either instigated by Jacobs or supported by him. No one looks at real data to see if decisions made are in the best interest of the University ??? it doesn???t even seem to be that this is the goal. Jacobs??? response to his last evaluation should provide enough data to answer this question. He made clear to the Chronicle of Higher Education he doesn’t take the criticism seriously. He should because in three years, things have gotten worse, not better.
4.58 Change is never easy, or immune to resistance, but we have consistently moved forward through the actions and follow-up of Dr. Jacobs and those who report to him.
4.59 A strength. 4.60 Pres Jacobs does an admirable job with accountability overall. 4.61 feedback is only from a chosen few.
4.62 Always very clearly places himself in the center of responsibility for failures as well as successes. Highly professional.
AREA 4. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 29 4.63 Dr. Jacobs told the faculty in the health sciences that he would appoint a Dean before the
merger of UTP and UTMC. He did not keep his word.
4.64 President Jacobs could not give two hoots about what faculty think.
4.65 The former feedback given to Dr Jacobs through this very mechanism was publicly discounted by Dr Jacobs himself and had no consequences whatsoever. Losing 7-8 millions on a very risky investment had also no consequences. The UTIE books were not audited. The key positions nominations are centrally handled and the BOT is caught in a passive attitude avoiding conflict and debate.
4.66 Always accountable. Takes responsibility for issues that service i.e. kidney issue. Stand up for what he feels is the right thing to do and stands behind his decisions.
4.67 He does “follow through” when it matches his own myopic vision. Does NOT typically receive feedback “gracefully” but actually quite tersely and contentiously with faculty.
4.68 I do not perceive that the President is concerned about being responsible to anyone other than the Board of Trustees.
4.69 There is a lot to be accountable for; e.g. administrators living high on the hog, hiring expensive “experts” whereas there is whole campus of experts that Jacobs et al do not see fit to consult with IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.
4.70 Actions that have garnered negative national press for UT and fueled a tremendous amount of litigation does not speak to a knowledgeable level of competency.
4.71 No Comment.
4.72 He acts as though he is not accountable to anyone, certainly he does not care what faculty have to say. His administrative structure ignores what happens on MC and he appears to ignore input from that unit.
4.73 He won’t even see this comment much less care what it says.
4.74 Have witnessed Dr. Jacobs being very defensive about his feedback especially when it comes to exorbitant bonuses while other people are losing their jobs
4.75 Takes away decision-making authority from key academic administrators - deans, etc. and transfers power to non-academic administrators with little knowledge of academia.
4.76 Every couple years we seem to come up wth another Bold New Innovative strategic plan, some of which may be followed through upon but significant parts of which will just be ignored. Dr. Jacobs’s intensely top-down management style has repeaedly proven ineffective at the university. I wish him well, but I despair of seeing the kinds of changes that we need to effectively harness the enormous potential of the University of Toledo.
4.77 He seems to act in a civil manner
4.78 He will never be gordon gee, give it up lloyd, on your watch a kidney gets tossed, students are murdered, the hospital is one of the worst in US...take money from colleges to support a failing hospital, reward incompetence
4.79 When he gives away university money to start-up companies, he doesn’t take responsibility for the consequences, the consequences being a severe strain on the university budget.
4.80 there are different rules for different individuals/groups on this campus.
AREA 4. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 30 4.81 Promised to meet w/ Superintendents - never followed through. Further deteriorated Univer-
sity’s poor reputation w/ area schools
4.82 Tells faculty they have a say and then ignores their recommendations. Gives with one hand and takes away with the other.
4.83 From Blade articles it appears he has wasted financial resources.
4.84 Accountability?? Hiring consultants and paying them without details statements of work done? Every year faculty fill out an ARPA detailing their work from the previous year. Dr. Jacobs has repeatedly stated that he does not want to hire full-time faculty because of the serious financial commitment it signifies. Yet, when it serves his purpose, he hires consults that cost many times what several faculty lines would cost, and demands no accountabilty for their work to the university and Ohio taxpayers.
4.85 Seems to always think that people not working hard enough is the reason for the problem rather than looking for the root cause of problems.
4.86 Does demonsrate responsiblity although not always in a timely manner.
4.87 Wanted to “throw a dean under the bus.” That was very unprofessional, insulting, and de- grading. He was never held accountable for such a terrible statement.
4.88 Seems cordial in person. However, in private is known to have commented “throw the Dean under the bus”.
4.89 Please; this doesn’t even merit a response. I’m just glad I don’t need a kidney transplant.
4.90 Public behavior good, letters/memos show dissatisfaction with others disagreeing with new policies.
4.91 Very defensive when given feedback. It is his way or the highway. If you disagree with him then you are gone.
4.92 The president does not take criticism well.
4.93 Does not look at all possible consequences before making decisions
4.94 For all the reasons mentioned above
4.95 There is a palpable fear to approach his office with problems–this inhibits growth and problem solving for the entire university.
4.96 I almost checkd “exceeds expectations” but I have not seen evidence of “gracefully receives”. Dr. Jacobs, you might try and smile more in meetings. I have seen you smile in small groups. I enjoy your style of conducting meetings. I learn a lot from you. You really are a kind person.
Area 5
Knowledge And Expertise In Higher Education
The extent of current knowledge and expertise in university administration prac- tices.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations:
Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.14
Faculty Respondents
Shows little effort to improve knowledge and may not 128 acknowledge inadequacy. Does not keep up with best practices in administering a metropolitan university.
Shows effort to improve knowledge of innovative ap- 124 proaches to higher educational administration. Occa- sionally has difficulty understanding issues or applying expertise in response to the needs of others.
Effectively uses expertise to solve problems or accom- 58 plish results by expected deadlines. Maintains a working knowledge of best practices in administering a metropoli- tan university.
Actively seeks and achieves creative solutions to prob- 31 lems by applying expertise. Willing to try new ap- proaches to foster community/university partnerships.
Consistently expands knowledge and professional exper- 20 tise. Employs innovative approaches and shows cross- disciplinary support for educational innovations that en- courage partnerships among colleges, community, and
faculty. Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 21
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 5 begin on the following page.
AREA 5. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 32 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 5 (verbatim)
5.1 An authoritarian management style does not work in a creative, innovative, and interpersonal environment like a university–best reserved for prisons and the military.
5.2 Does not seem to understand the purpose of this university. He is more concerned with business than the business of education.
5.3 Needs to expand his knowledge of how a comprehensive university (as opposed to just a medical college) functions.
5.4 This person has never taught and all his administration consists of people have no academic experience; he openly ignores any role of such, he does not understand how academia operates, he thinks it must operate as a business, while it is quite opposite: academia is based on and supports non-monetary value in the society, it is responsible for this country future generations, for the future educated labor force, for the intellectual potential, for the ability to tell truth. unfortunately, Jacobs does not recognize that and keeps destroying the university.
5.5 Demonstrates profound lack of understanding of higher education outside of the medical college. Little understanding or appreciation of shared governance, faculty workloads, or the needs of undergraduate students
5.6 No idea. I think that he at least reads the latest popular research (or has summaries prepared)
5.7 Dr. Jacobs is bold and innovative in his approach to higher education. He is less than popular with certain groups due to the fact that he is keenly aware of the need for the University of Toledo to be transformational in its approach to teaching and learning in higher education and research
5.8 No one doubts Dr. Jacobs’s knowledge of medical education, but he has not made the effort to understand other disciplines or to learn from those on campus with more experience and expertise in the areas he doesn’t know as well.
5.9 Universities should not be run like businesses. If you are going to do this, at least run it like a good business.
5.10 lack of knowledge of the value of liberal education.
5.11 Dr. Jacobs has a narrow-minded approach in pushing policies that are more appropriate to business/industry.
5.12 I believe Dr. Jacobs has improved his knowledge of general higher education issues over time. He has transitioned from a focus primarily on medicine to the larger university and I would like to see him continue to make progress in this area.
5.13 He may say that he represents the Main campus programs, but his actions demonstrate that he is not willing to learn about non-medical academic programs.
5.14 He has no idea how to run a academic institution.
5.15 I am not aware that he has attended even one self-improvement workshops for presidents of state-funded public higher education institutions. He appears too arrogant to seek help for his obvious inadequacies.
5.16 Seems very knowledgeable about general trends in the world affecting higher education. Seems not to be very well informed about how other institutions are responding. Understanding of NON-medical education has dramatically increased over the evaluation period, but this does not seem to be reflected in some decisions and statements.
5.17 Appears to have almost a complete lack of knowledge of resources needed to establish and main- tain graduate programs across the diverse disciplines. Appears unaware of linkages between graduate programs and undergraduate experiential learning. Displays a lack of creativity and extremely poor leadership in addressing challenges in higher education.
5.18 Consistently ignores appropriate governance protocols. Runs the University as if it was a toy to feed his ego.
5.19 May have rated too highly for scale- not sure he is aware of other similar institutions but seems to have odd “vision” that does not seem realistic nor attainable ( limited knowl- edge/expertise in Higher Education)
5.20 Flim-Flam man, very low knowledge of higher education, very high knowledge of advertising practice
5.21 He thinks that he has innovative ideas (mass-customization, no full-time status for some in- coming students, investment in questionable business deals, business-model management style of quick decision soon regretted), but he does not have the ability and discernment to move us forward.
5.22 In short, he has no idea what the life of an academician is like and has never indicated a desire to obtain information regarding the day-to-day workings of the faculty. Worse, he has surrounded himself with others who also lack that insight. I find it particularly grating that every fall the president welcomes the faculty back to campus after the “summer break”. I spend my entire summer on campus working FOR FREE! Does he acknowledge this? No, but I really don’t need that acknowledgement. My concern and frustration is that he doesn’t even seem to know that many people are doing this.
5.23 zero experience in higher education not related to medicine
5.24 The recently “proposed” (mandated seems like a better word!) changes originating from Pres. Jacobs and Prov. Scarborough regarding faculty workload and priorities on campus (wrt teach- ing, research and service balance) demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of all components of higher education on our campus. Much of the proposal has the potential to be extremely damaging to the university, esp. in the long term, but even in the short term. Again, input from many bodies composed of faculty has been ignored or done away with. Good, solid questions emphasizing shortfalls have been dodged or ignored.
5.25 Selectively uses literature to support his perspectives.
5.26 He doesn’t understand academics. He hires unqualified administrators and simply promotes the latest fad. He has publicly dismissed the importance of expertise and knowledge in a specific domain for administrators in interviews and speeches. Hence we get decisions like appointing an engineer who runs a plastics company to Dean of the college of education, or an accountant to be an academic provost. He actually believes that *not* having knowledge and expertise in higher education is a desirable quality for academic administrators such as himself.
5.27 It’s well understood that UT spends vast sums of money on consultants that provide knowledge and expertise to Dr. Jacobs. I don’t believe that’s an adequate method to obtain knowledge and expertise as President of a university for someone with his background. Specifically, he refuses to acknowledge the knowledge and expertise of any faculty without an MD behind his or her name, which is destroying academics on the Main Campus at UT. For example, it appears that anyone who held a tenure track position and then received tenure and has experience in rising through the ranks from faculty to administration will NOT be hired as a Provost or outside Dean at UT. Thus, his administration is full of people who don’t know what they don’t know.
AREA 5. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 34 5.28 I am not convinced that Dr. Jacobs or many of those he’s hired in senior management positions
have sufficient knowledge of university responsibilities or operations to successfully lead UT.
5.29 Still does not appear to really grasp academe; too steeped in the medical model; hires others who also do not understand what faculty life is really like.
5.30 Hired the current provost
5.31 The biggest problem is that the president does not seem to understand that a university cannot be governed in a “top down” (company style) manner. Faculty, not the administration, generate new ideas that should guide the creation of new schools, programs etc. The president does not seem to understand the concept of academic freedom.
5.32 Jacobs is not qualified to hold a faculty position let alone administer UT. He duped the Board of Trustees at the time of the merger and now he uses the resources of the university and public funds to quiet opposition. He made a BOT member a dean!
5.33 In my opinion MD’s don’t know anything about earning a PhD.
5.34 Provides too many catch phrases to promote ideas. We’re all sick of synergy, new normal, and all the rest.
5.35 He appears to think he already knows everything there is to know, when in fact his under- standing of undergraduate and graduate education is lacking. He does understand professional education, but not the education for most students on the main campus.
5.36 As nearly as I can tell the President has no idea how to run the academic side of a public university. In fact, he celebrates filling his ranks with similar inexperienced administrators. He has gotten this idea that he is somehow in a “revolution” of higher ed - and like all revolutionary zealots he has lost sight of the goals.
5.37 His plans and actions reflect ideals that are exactly the opposite of those that called me into education. he says his ideas are about a better university, but he presses for changes that harm the student’s chance for a quality education. He is harmful to our mission of serving students.
5.38 One-solution-fits-all types of mentality seem to predominate.
5.39 Jacobs either does not know or perhaps care about the basic functions that get things done at UT since so many of his decrees make it hard for people to do their jobs. Make-work gets created to fix or work around obstacles that he puts in place. The real long-term work of academics gets put aside while we fight fires that he lights.
5.40 Knows nothing about leading a university. His background and experience are lacking.
5.41 The dismantling of colleges and creating new colleges and schools that make no sense together is evidence of his limited understanding of education. The across the board make all classes look the same with regard to enrollment also demonstrates a poor understanding.
5.42 He does not know how a university should work. One can be a great top manager at an insurance company or at a hospital, but this does not mean that his skills can be successfully transferred to every other complex organization. Indeed his management of this university has been abysmal. I see students constantly transferring out and complaining about classes being cancelled. Usually those are pretty good students, while we recruit more and more of the bottom of the barrel (and do not get me started on high school GPA that does not mean anything).
5.43 I fear he doesn’t really know how to run an institution of this size and with this mission. All I hear is “take it out on the faculty”...whether it comes to salary, workload, whatever, the solution is always to make faculty do more with less.
AREA 5. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 35 5.44 Appreciate his willingness to engage at state level, to take leadership role in initiatives
5.45 He chose a provost (and by the provost actually said that he did not know what a provost really does). The new honors dean has never been associated with any honors program. I agree that academics could be changed for the better - but where is the evidence that this way is the way? where is the evidence based practice?
5.46 He knows about administration but he has not been a professor so has no first hand knowledge of what we do and how many course and total number of students a professor can handle. Some courses have many assignments turned in that are quick to grade but others required a much extended time for grading. What the administration is doing make education a manufacturing plant
5.47 Has absolutely no idea how academia works, even after all these years. He surrounds himself with cronies who are clueless as to academia as well.
5.48 I found his statement that individuals who respect the traditional practices of colleges and uni- versities as “living in the middle ages” as inappropriate and slanderous. Liberal arts education is not a thing of the past, despite newer constituencies gaining access to the academic world.
5.49 The President has overemphasized economic development and the clinical enterprise to the detriment of the academic enterprise.
5.50 Dr. Jacobs doesn’t have a clue about what it takes to enable a university to flourish. He makes decisions that have little tod do with bets practice or current professional or higher education trends. A good example would be his decision to combine the college of education and the HHS college two years ago. This action joined together units that had been seperated ten years earlier, and in the case of HHS, had flourished as a result of the independence they had achieved. And it went against trends across the country to establish independent colleges of HHS (or health science)to capitalize on the growth of opportunities in health and human services fields. Dr. Jacobs ignored all of this, never discussed his plans with those in HHS, and created the JHCOEHSHS because it was what he wanted.
5.51 He makes decisions that have no grounding in any academic setting anywhere.
5.52 Distance learning is a farce. It’s currently money maker but the administrators don’t under- stand fallacy of composition. Once every University starts pursuing distance learning then the profits driven by that dwindle. Also, I would never encourage my own children to take those inferior distance learning classes.
5.53 Try to include more academicians in your leadership team.
5.54 Dr. Jacobs does well at engaging the business of higher education. On the downside, he does not fully understand or engage the academic/educational side of our institution.
5.55 Has no understanding of the difference between running a business and university, moreover, seems to be proud of his absolute ignorance.
5.56 Dr. Gold is an extremely intelligent individual who does his homework and is very much informed on all matters that pertain to his position and the position of the College and medical center.
5.57 He seems to think higher education’s purpose is to support business innovation and hospital growth. This is mission drift. He does not distinguish between research that improves teaching and learning, versus that done primarily for private sector benefit. He doesn’t understand that research done in higher education, whether funded or unfunded, is to be conducted in part so that students have research experience and in part so that the professors maintain profession necessary to teach.
AREA 5. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 36 5.58 he is a bean counter who ran a Medical School which is NOT a comprehensive university. His
ignorance of the humanities and social sciences is similar to the governors is Texas and Florida.
5.59 Limited exposure in professional program shows here.
5.60 Dr. Jacobs has demostrated complete ineptitude in the selection of the senor administrators at UT. He has surrounded himself with people who are essentially yes-men. He has also been unable to tackle the financial side of things and has redistributed funds based upon pet-projects and risky adventures.
5.61 He does not appear to have experience in higher education beyond the pro-business financial aspects.
5.62 I am concerned about maintaining UT’s place as a research university and its role in graduate education. For the past 9 years, I have been impressed by our increasing synergy and growing recognition in environmental research and education. I now am quite concerned about the increase in negative morale among the faculty.
5.63 I still am surprised by his lack of understanding of basic educational concepts.
5.64 His advertising budget seems geared only to the medical college. The rest of us do not seem to matter.
5.65 Does not seem to hire people that are knowledgeable about administering a metropolitan university
5.66 it is unclear what level of knowledge he has about higher education. His vision for UT and his implementation of what UT needs to do are not well-integrated.
5.67 Again, limited person contact, but his public communication is always focused on what is best for UT
5.68 I sense he must not be doing a very good job because The University of Toledo has so many ongoing issues we are unable to resolve.
5.69 Does not take into consideration the faculty input into decision making progress. For example reorganization of the colleges. Marches ahead unilaterally.
5.70 Dr. Jacobs is clearly an intelligent man, and now has 6 years of experience as a major university president. Our doors are still open, so if that is the measure of success, he has achieved it. However, UT is a broken organization. There is a systemic lack of quality in everything we do. We are constantly trying to fix broken things, rather than helping things go right in the first place. These problems are the result of a top-down approach to nearly every organizational process. The fiasco with workload issues is a prime example of misguided focus on fixing things that are broken, rather that working with faculty to insure things go right.
5.71 I unfortunately must indicate that he is trying to “appear” like he is understanding, but his actions speak only to not unerstanding anything of the big picture....just his VERY LIMITED are of expertise
5.72 President Jacobs seems to continue to struggle with the basic functions of a University. Though there are business aspects, it should be treated very differently from a profit-making business, which is not currently the case. This is often evident in the selections of his assistants and other high level adminstrators hired.
5.73 Thinks that the university model that brought about the Enlightenment and representative Democracy is ’a middle ages model.’ In a complex organization, those who do the work know best how to maximize efficiency. Instead, Jacobs hires more management. He bases his model on a couple of thin books, neither of which has conclusions supported by data.
5.74 President Jacobs attempts to approach higher education from the perspective of running a for profit business and apply the principles utilized in that arena. He has extremely poor aculturation to higher education, and as a result his communication is poor. I do not know for sure the extent of his “knowledge and expertise in university administration practices,” but judging from his approach I believe that it is weak and superficial at best.
5.75 Dr. Jacobs has made little effort to educate himself about running a University. He may know about healthcare administration and running a professional school – although I am not convinced of this – but he does not seem to have knowledge of all the functions served by a university –even the basics about differences in graduate and undergraduate education, the different role of a technical college or community college and a university. However, he does not let his lack of knowledge stop him from making uninformed decisions – he doesn???t ever seem to seriously consider deferring to someone with any expertise in a given area. He has settled on a very particular and narrow story and does not deviate even when the objective data don’t seem to support his way of doing things.
5.76 We are not a highly ranked national university, and yet UT is at the forefront in a number of areas with innovative approaches to education.
5.77 Again, problem is too many irons in the fire, with insufficient delegation of true authority.
5.78 Follows fad literature with little follow through. Constantly changes with new initiatives.
5.79 wants to run this university as a business rather than an institution of higher education. You can’t run a university as a business. Students are not customers who get to have their way.
5.80 Dr. Jacobs has made great efforts to increase his understanding of challenges faced by uni- versities now and in the likely future. However, his actual application of this knowledge and roll out of interventions is full of problems and his staff fears him and he has not been able to achieve goal acceptance by most staff and faculty. In other words, he imposes his will rather than inspires and cuts off any criticism or honest analysis of current practices or decisions.
5.81 I believe Pres Jacobs has honestly put forth a great deal of effort to better understand higher education, universities in today’s society, and changes needed to put UT in a favorable position in the short and long term. He deserves credit for such efforts. Unfortunately, at the same time, he has consistently ignored input from the students and the faculty, instead choosing to listen only to other administrators. Administrators don’t make a university what it is - the students and faculty do. Students and faculty want to help make UT the best it can possibly be, but Pres Jacobs, for some reason, refuses to buy into this philosophy.
5.82 Has his own vision of higher education based on little knowledge or expertise and is set on pushing that on the faculty. Look at how many non-educators he has brought in to leadership positions.
5.83 Highly informed in higher education and has exceptional expertise in higher education admin- istration.
5.84 I have not seen innovative approaches, willingness to try new things, or development of or respect for existing partnerships. For example, the relationship with Promedica is tenuous in part because of the way UT has taken advantage of the relationship.
5.85 very knowledgable about topic concerning the university
5.86 I was a big fan of President Jacobs when he became the UT President. However, over the years it has become apparent that he does not have a clue about what a university is and what a university’s role in broader society is. He has very little respect for faculty, especially their role as researchers.
AREA 5. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 38 5.87 The university structure was changed without input from the regular faculty. Nobody ever
considered that the decrease in the enrollemnt numbers could be directly related to that.
5.88 Has really moved the image of the university forward and improved the image. Very innovative. Recognizes the need to partnership with the community and stakeholders
5.89 Would not exactly state “has difficulty” understanding issues but resists attempting to see other side(s).
5.90 I believe that the President is not hesitant to try something new that he believes will be successful.
5.91 Dr Jacobs sees the University as a business not an institution of higher learning.
5.92 Administrative jobs ALWAYS go to insiders. Why? The big players are not traditional Phd academics so not surprisingly they have only contempt for such people.
5.93 I don’t claim to have a lot of knowledge about administering a university. I know that Dr. Jacobs has been very active in fostering community/university/business partnerships.
5.94 Actions that have garnered negative national press for UT and violated current contractual language does not speak to a knowledgeable level of competency.
5.95 Establishment of new “Schools”
5.96 He is unwilling to compromise. His is the only vision that needs to be implemented. He feels that the faculty do not know what is best for the university and only his solution should dominate. We the underlings do not count.
5.97 Again, Dr. Jacobs appears more interested in making proclamations rather than involving MC faculty in the administrative process.
5.98 Dr. Jacobs is implementing new initiatives at the University, but sometimes it feels like he is running a business: what the boss says, goes. Budgets are tight and changes need to be made, but I’m concerned that Dr. Jacobs doesn’t seem to be able to make shared governance work so that we can all work together to get the University back on track. Sometimes it seems like Dr. Jacobs has a hard time seeing the big picture of the university: coursework, research, libraries, student life, etc. All of these units/functions make important contributions to the education of our students.
5.99 Operates as an “at will” fast food employer with minimum wage workers.
5.100 Doesn’t seem to understand that replacing faculty, who are involved in scholarly activity, with lecturers, who will only teach, will move us back from a university to a city college. The UT administration has historically been unable to recognize genuine scholarly activity.
5.101 frequently seems to be unaware of current trends or terminology - relies on others to interpret certain words for him.
5.102 A couple of years ago brought in a consultant (paid) on managerial and structural issues; most of the information that was brought forward was dismissed and the faculties recommendations were never used or listened to but now he is bringing in other consultants to do the same thing; it was a waste because the faculties voice will never be heard
5.103 Dr. Jacobs has repeatedly hired into positions of academic leadership people who are woefully unprepared to succeed at the position. Here are four examples: Y.T. Lee, a nice man and competent scholar who was clearly not up to the many responsibilities required to effectively lead the university’s largest college; Nina McClelland, well-intentioned but with no academic
5.105 5.106 5.107 5.108
5.109 5.110 5.111
5.112 5.113
5.117 5.118
experience, let alone experiene in academic leadership; Bill McMillen, also well-intentioned, with a long career of success in governmental relations but no real academic experience: he’d never been a full-time faculty member, never earned tenure, never chaired a department, never been a dean – no wonder he was not competent to be the university’s chief academic officer; Dr. McMillen’s successor, Scott Scarborough, likewise has not had the experience neessary to develop the skill and knowledge demanded to effectively lead the academic enterprise. This history of hiring into crucial positions of leadership people who are for all their good intentions simply unprepared is not reflective of the requisite level of knowledge and expertise in higher education.
Compared to Dr Johnson he seems to know little about how the main campus operates and does not seem to have a well developed philosophy of higher education in the 21st century - he has ideas but they are not developed by listening.
He cant recall deans names, has no knowledge of colleges andbtheir roles
Little knowledge of undergraduate education and refuses to accept feedback
bias towards medical side of institution
He has no interest in higher education except of course for the Medical School. Merger was in fact a takeover.
Dr. Gold is very engaged in maintaining the excellence of UTMC. That is clear. He has proven this in a number of ways. I think this is best exemplified with the current LCME discussions.
Dr. Jacobs cherry picks models of higher education approaches that serve his needs. It does not appear that he seriously considers all models, but rather those that support his beliefs.
Does not appear to understand the role and importance of full-time faculty to the educational mission. The new focus on hybrid and distance learning will not work for our type of student and will produce disaster for the University.
Has appropriate knowledge.
President Jacobs thinks that hiring people from the business sector who are not academically- oriented will improve the university. Instead, these individuals come in and are trying to quickly change things within the university so that they can pad their resumes and jump to the next institution.
While some may question his vision, I do acknowledge that he at least has a vision. The problem is that the vision seems to change every year. How many reorganizations are necessary? If Dr. Jacobs would properly consult with faculty, many of the questionable and embarrassing missteps he has made likely could have been avoided.
His past experience and pedigree and lack of serious academic research work (lack of a PhD for example) are impediments too serious to overcome. The best he has been able to do is muddle his way from one emergency to another. Lack of understanding of academic culture of self-governance and his complete refusal to learn it are major roadblocks to him becoming an effective leader.
Doesn’t seem to have any idea of what’s involved in providing a quality university education to students.
Arrogance and ignorance do not make for effective or professional leadership.
Dr. Jacobs seems to not know what faculty really do and therefore tends to cling to stereotypes about faculty rather than actually understanding their varied situations.
5.119 5.120 5.121
5.122 5.123
There seems to be some disparity in teaching load assignments that indicate a lack of defining exactly what counts, doesn’t count, and who gets to count one way or another.
Does not make an effort to improve or acknowledge inadequacy. He was trained as a surgeon and not prepared for academic role.
There are many faculty on this campus with tremendous knowledge and expertise in higher education who want to move the university forward in a positive way. In order for that to happen a two-way dialogue has to happen with the President having an open mind to institu- tional history. He has failed to understand the true purpose of higher education and the needs of the students. The major problem The University of Toledo has is that with every change in administrator there is a new vision on how to remake the university. Constant change to remake the university in each person’s image hinders true growth and pursuit of xcellence.
The President’s (and Provost’s) lack of experience and familiarity with how a University func- tions is beginning to have very serious repercussions, as described above.
To faculty/staff/students, most decisions appear to be made based upon financial/business decisions, and most favor the medical campus/hospital. While the business side of the university certainly requires attention, knowledge and expertise in higher education does not appear to be a strength but certainly is needed for this important position.
While I believe that Dr. Jacobs tries to find innovative approaches to addressing current challenges facing academia, the decisions to move forward with college realignments (and re- realignments), focusing on faculty workloads in a confrontational manner, hiring the Main Campus provost from within the UTMC leadership and an apparent unwillingness to work with the Faculty Senate have not been effective.
I appreciate how he appears to “do his homework” and interact with his peer group outside of University.
Area 6 Strategic Planning
The extent to which strategies, activities, and resources must be prioritized and allocated to achieve future outcomes.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations:
Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.08
Faculty Respondents
Does not demonstrate significant critical thinking and 140 analysis skills. Attempts to develop plans and strategies without involving others, leading to poorly implemented plans and strategies.
Attempts to plan, but struggles with setting priorities. 118 May have difficulty convincing others of the necessity for the strategy. Does not involve stakeholders enough in planning process.
Engages in planning in a collaborative way. Occasionally 57 implementation of strategies may take longer due to lack of buy-in from critical stakeholders.
With others, develops reasonable plans for multiple 19 projects and effectively encourages their implementation. Succeeds in getting buy-in for the strategies from most stakeholders.
Prioritizes activities that make the best possible use of 24 resources. Demonstrates excellent critical thinking and analysis skills. Involves others in planning process. Pro- vides vision for the future.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 24
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 6 begin on the following page.
AREA 6. STRATEGIC PLANNING 42 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 6 (verbatim)
6.1 Dr. Jacobs may involve others in the planning process, but those “others” do not include faculty who have the best experience and knowledge of how to best serve the student, and how to best educate the student.
6.2 In order to be successful at strategic planning, one has to be willing to understand what the actual situation is instead of responding to a non-existent environment. President Jacobs oftentimes comes at problems from a “this is the way it should be” and not “this is the way it is” point-of-view. This is likely because his subordinates don’t wish to tell him the real story because of their fear of retaliation.
6.3 Only involves those others whose opinions agree with his own.
6.4 His strategic planning does show signs of honest attempts at doing a good job. Unfortunately, he usually fails at this.
6.5 he does not know what is strategic planning. the current effort to promote renewable energy was mismanaged and not strategically aligned with other similar efforts in the US. as a result it is a complete failure. in the meantime many other directions have been sacrificed, which is anti-strategic.
6.6 The whole notion of the relevant university implies that for decades UT has been irrelevant. How insulting. The strategic plan is based on marketing and business assumptions that have failed elsewhere. Seems unable or unwilling to embrace the mission of the university.
6.7 What strategic planning? We have engaged in constant creative destruction on the hopes that something will work. This has resulted in chaos. College are required to move into a model of databased decision making while U-Hall is under its in my gut models of decision making. Please look and the different visions of the university expressed by Dr. Jacobs over the past few years. Also the organization and reorganizations of colleges, departments, and programs. The various iterations of Judith Herb is a good example of this.
6.8 Dr. Jacobs has demonstrated significant leadership skills in regard to development and imple- mentation of a bold strategic and relevant plan for the future. He has risked a great deal both personally and professionally to do what he thinks is right for the University of Toledo and the Community. He is constantly thwarted and confronted by factions that are largely interested in conserving tradition and continues to allocate priorities according to the strategic direction of the University and Board of Govenors.
6.9 The future plans have shifted rapidly as attempted endeavors have failed. The College of Innovative Learning, which was announced as a large-scale, well funded initiative, was scrapped after one year. This is illustrative of the arbitrariness of Dr. Jacobs’s approach.
6.10 I think that strategic planning is an area in need improvement. The Directions document is unwieldy and to the best of my knowledge, once finished was shelved with little follow up. A great deal of faculty effort went into contributing to the Directions process but now seems unrelated to our decision making processes. The new strategic plan from Provost Scarborough seems to apply to the main campus, but I’m unclear as to its status for the HSC.
6.11 from a to z
6.12 President Jacobs record demonstrates that he is clueless about how to run a successful taxpayer- supported academic institution of higher education.
6.13 Although planning takes place, the rapid of changing priorities makes implementation difficult. Constituencies have little sense of ownership of strategic direction or programmatic emphasis causing inefficient and ineffective implementation.
AREA 6. STRATEGIC PLANNING 43 6.14 Unable to develop a positive future vision for UT, and the status of the University drops -
along with enrollments - every semester.
6.15 Cannot comment on this person alone, but do not observe effective planning from this admin- istrative team- and he is the (ineffective) leader
6.16 What strategic plan, which strategic plan? 6.17 The text in this category fits him perfectly. 6.18 excludes faculty in decision making
6.19 President Jacobs tries to run this university as a “dictator”. However, academic institutions have always been a stronghold of democracy. Faculty realize economic realities. Faculty are willing to help explore solutions. Departments and Deans are willing to contribute. Instead, we are faced with decisions made at the very top that we strongly disagree with.
6.20 Seeks feedback but unable to achieve buy-in.
6.21 Doesn’t know what he’s doing. Actions are often inconsistent with his rationales. Puts cronies in positions that they are not qualified for. He is not strategic at all - he simply jumps from one current academic fad to the next.
6.22 The planning at UT is the simple imposition of a top-down strategy conceived in ignorance by people who have little or no knowledge or respect for the role of a university in society. There is very little if any input from those with knowledge, who are dismissed as “part of the problem”. Clearly a self-fulfilling perspective.
6.23 Created a strategic plan that is now rarely consulted since everyone is focused on the new strategic plan that the provost has unvieled–a plan with more focus on implementation, which isn’t too bad. But some of the new inititives are “interesting” to say the least.
6.24 The biggest problem is the President’s inability to involve stakeholders in strategic planning. Participants in the strategic planning process are selected to fit a predetermined strategy rather than allowing stakeholders to shape the strategy.
6.25 The plan we are continuing to change and re-change just takes up time and has no benefit for students and faculty. Looks like we are trying to get broken down to a medical school, engineering and business college. All others may as well go to BG now.
6.26 His best work is with athletics. If that amount of energy can be focused on academics, he’d have a win-win situation.
6.27 Faculty involvement by the faculty senate has been consistently missing.
6.28 Changes every year.
6.29 His plans run counter to what i believe is student-centered service.
6.30 Does not involve stakeholders enough in planning process – unless stakeholders is being under- stood as the Board of Trustees.
6.31 If Jacobs had to deal more directly with the consequences of his actions, he might be a lot more careful. Instead he gets paid more while everyone below him has to scramble to keep the ship afloat.
6.32 The president is a bully with a fire, ready, aim decision style. Meanwhile the BOT simply does not care as the university sinks.
6.33 One can not have a new strategic or tactical planning (yes, I know they are two different processes) every six months and give huge bonuses to a person who prepared in 3 months a sophomoric power point presentation a graduate student would have prepared with more details about the execution in 1 week for 500$.
6.34 The amount of resources which have gone to investments and such, when the faculty keeps getting squeezed, seems ill-guided.
6.35 Good luck in establishing UT as a respected institution of higher learning. Strategically? Put UT out of its pain and suffering. And if that makes you fatter and richer, and that’s your idea of public service–then, job well done.
6.36 The situation regarding the colleges is a great example. 2 years ago some colleges were merged, others were split. now the merged college is now 3. and all of this was done without input from faculty or deans. It is as if administration thinks they know all. And the people who actually do the work of the university don’t have a voice.
6.37 He like to create new strategies without knowing and evaluating the covenquences
6.38 This goes back to a previous comment: He does not take advantage of the faculty’s institutional memory, nor for that matter, faculty opinion or involvement.
6.39 I sense that there are “plans” but input into them is not disclosed in a fair and open manner. Changes in operations are announced with little effort to engage cooperation beforehand.
6.40 The President has not articulated how he will grow enrollment at the University and hire faculty in programs areas that have growth potential.
6.41 Strategic planning at UT is a joke! During the past six years we have undergone strategic plan- ning (in one form or another) at least four times. While I can only speak for what has occurred in one college, there isn’t a SINGLE thing that has changed in our college or department as a result of the strategic planning that be have been forced to endure!!! The decisons that have come out of strategic planning could have resulted from a few hours of meeting time by a group of experienced faculty.
6.42 All upper-level appointments have been made with little consultation.
6.43 Dr. Jacobs has ignored the faculty and has employed outside consultants to transform the university into a teaching college.
6.44 Too much transition. Create one plan and stick with it.
6.45 Planning is short-term focused and inconsistent.
6.46 Priorities are ever-changing on the main campus. Colleges are merged/split for opaque and often contradictory reasons.
6.47 We continue in a downward spiral.
6.48 Insufficient involvement of staekholders in the process.
6.49 he sets up planning groups, retreats, etc., and then no matter what they recommend, he does what he decided to do before hand (i.e.hire Scarborough).
6.50 We’re perpetually begin “led” through or out of one crisis after another. Eventually, we wonder if we haven’t been led INTO these crises.
6.51 Please see #2 above.
6.52 Strategic plan for a single college is used with the detrimental expense of the rest of the university. Shifting general funds to pet projects on the health science campus then proclaiming we have a financial crisis is unconscionable.
6.53 I am concerned with priorities, directions of our university, and morale; my concern has grown several fold with the new Provost.
6.54 Many decisions are made without talking to people “in the trenches.” Much MICRO-managing.
6.55 There seems to be some movement toward trying to find and support departments that might actually attract students.
6.56 Targets seem to be constantly in flux (from one transformative change to another). It is difficult to stage engaged and meet strategic goals this way.
6.57 persons involved in planning do not proportionally reflect those who will be impacted by the plan/decision
6.58 Strategic planning document that Provost presenting is not an effective document. The docu- ment is preoccupied budget shortfall (30 million +) which is in a sense a small problem if bold plans for joint problem solving is really intended. Mostly, what strategic planning suggests is top down communication, “I know what our problems are. Just do what we recommend to do”.
6.59 I am not privy to the extent of his involvement, but assume that he has lead the recent work.
6.60 He responds to email in a timely manner. I think attention needs to be paid to what tasks should take priority.
6.61 His arguements do not make any sense to the faculty. Whenever, there is acrimony in the working relations of faculty and administrators, the enrollment will continue to drop.
6.62 Our strategic plan for 2011 was filled with expenditures that we cannot possible fulfill. Dr. Jacobs certainly struggles with setting priorities, and clearly struggles with convincing anyone other than his direct reports of the necessity of the strategy. Where are we going as a university? It is unclear to me, given that each year we use the budgeting process to bleed each unit until it suffers from mediocrity and lapses in quality. It is likely necessary to close programs...Dr. Jacobs should do it! Redirect funding to healthy areas of the organization, and pare off the aspects that are draining our resources. These are the difficult decisions, strategic in nature that establish the future focus of a relevant university.
6.63 I think that the University got too much involved in the solar energy adventures and took too much risks for a public university. (I do not know the exact numbers. I just got that impression.)
6.64 Clearly the situation resulting in the 36M shortfall points to poor planning and foresight.
6.65 In a constant state of flux. How many more times with our Strategic Plan change significantly? How can we plan when teaching positions are first approved, then withdrawn?
6.66 All Ohio public institutions of Higher Ed are in trouble. This calls first and foremost for effective and immaginative strategic planning on the part of leadership at the highest level. Here at the University of Toledo, we clearly do not have it! First, President Jacobs’ strategic planning provides for no involvement by at least one group of major stakeholder, the faculty. Ignoring and marginalizing major stakeholders when doing strategic planning is a recipe for a failed strategic plan. Second, he clearly believes that the future of the University lies with decreasing financial resources. Thus all of his strategic planning is done based on that assumption. I see no coordinated effort to increase University resources (for example, reimbursement from the
State). He occupies a bully pulpit (and he certainly knows how to be a bully!), so why is he not leading a charge to increase Higher Ed funding at the state level. This is just one example of his unimaginative approach to strategic planning.
6.67 Dr. Jacobs only uses input from others so that he can act in direct opposition to the beliefs and data provided by stakeholders. Planning is made by a very small group of people chosen because of their loyalty to the President. Because of this there is no dissent ???everyone knows it would not be tolerated ??? and history has shown this is not the way to make big picture, tough decisions. The University???s plan seems to change from month to month so time and money are constantly wasted.
6.68 From my standpoint, there has been extensive involvement of faculty in the development of strategic goals and objectives. Further, most of the budget challenges have been faced with strategic thinking rather than knee-jerk “sequester-type” approaches.
6.69 Key decisions are made first and explained later. Mitigating: Ohio’s budget crisis makes some of this unavoidable.
6.70 Aspecificcaseishisenthrallmentwithonlinelearningandthestreamliningofgeneraleducation. Not that these concepts are necessarily bad- just that there is no involvement of stakeholders.
6.71 Reoranizaion of colleges produced no improvement in enrolment. Enrolment is declining and budget deficits are growing.
6.72 I believe he does involve top management but he tends to ignore the feedback of general faculty, faculty bodies, and his Deans.
6.73 Pres Jacobs has done a good job of revising UT’s strategic plan and placing individuals in key roles for implementation.
6.74 Develops strategic plans, but doesn’t engage faculty in their development.
6.75 The future of health care is changing as physician population decreases. He sees the future of health care as strong partnerships among all health care and public health professionals and I am glad he has made sure to get more partnerships for public health with all the health care disciplines on Health Science Campus.
6.76 There should be a greater investment into University research.
6.77 The relationship with Promedica has definitely improved over the course of current president tenure. This needs to be developed further. It is important that the UT Medical Center clearly distinguishes itself as the cutting edge research center in contrast to state of the art medicine at other area health care systems. See comments regarding external relations
6.78 No one knows where this ship is headed.
6.79 What strategic planning? There is none for the academic or research side. The path on the HSC has been more about plugging holes than pursuing new strategies and programs or growing existing programs.
6.80 The results of the merger are a financially struggling institution, an anxiety provoking split between faculty and an isolated leadership, a unilaterally done restructuring that could have been resposible of the decrease in the enrollement.
6.81 Is a visionary. Involves appropriate people in decision making. Good critical thinking and analysis and open to feedback even if it is contrary to his decision
6.82 Seems only interested in convincing deans and higher administrators of “the strategy.” Takes an attitude of imposing this upon dissenting opinions, typically made by faculty.
AREA 6. STRATEGIC PLANNING 47 6.83 The responsibility for strategic planning for this university appears to have been shifted to the
Provost’s office.
6.84 Together with Dr Scarborough, Dr jacobs has embarked on a belt-tightening process to alleviate the current financial crisis ($36 Million at last count). This process focuses on faculty reduction by retirements and on increasing the workload of remaining faculty. Without balancing the cuts with new revenue, this will be an unsuccessful effort. Dr Jacobs has stated publicly that he has no intention of being a fundraiser and yet this is typically the most important role of a University President. He gets failing marks on this score.
6.85 Confusion. One day we are going to become a leading research institution; another day we going to become a glorified Community College. Picking winners at random e.g. Solar Energy.
6.86 Once again, most decisions made unilaterally
6.87 Makes a plan, but again, data-based decision making. Strategic decisions need to be based on data. Data from IR is often inaccurate.
6.88 Efforts like strategic planning, are crippled by the perpetual “re-envisioning/reorganizing” of the organizational structure. I’ve been here less than 5 years. I have been a part of 2 colleges, both of which have disappeared and no one can tell me what college I am in now. There has never been the time to implement any plan.
6.89 Undoubtedly a visionary. Not always successful at getting buy-in.
6.90 Based on the most recent actions by the Dean, it is unclear what the 5 or 10 year plan is for the University.
6.91 He listens to others and then does as he damn well pleases. It is as if he gave you a chance to talk and speak your mind but he have already made up his mind and any further discussion is irrelevant or germane to the subject.
6.92 His major problem here is that he is too autocratic with respect to strategic planning. The strategic plans that he develops do not involve MC faculty nor MC administration. Everything is focused around HSC and pet projects developed there rather than for the well-being of the whole university. His strategic plan is very much based around business rather than what the university wishes to do for the future and is ineffective for indicating where the university is trying to go.
6.93 I would like to see changes in the University be more explicitly tied to the strategic plan. Not that all good changes need to be tied to the strategic plan, but it would help internal stakeholders better understood how the changes will help us move in the direction in which we want to move.
6.94 Who are we? What are we? It appears that this is an organized state of confusion led by people who really do not understand how to create sucess.
6.95 It seems like a number of projects have been started and then quietly dropped. What ever happened to COIL and the reorganization of the core courses? Also, reorganizing the colleges has increased administrative costs with no benefit.
6.96 found it odd Dr. Jacobs actually considered Condi Rice as a provost candidate — this is seriously grandiose and unrealistic thinking.
6.97 Being on board with the new strategic planning of increased workload is sickening when he is getting huge bonuses
6.99 6.100
6.102 6.103 6.104 6.105
6.106 6.107
6.108 6.109
6.110 6.111 6.112
6.114 6.115
Faculty are not consulted over key changes. Administrators with minimal knowledge of academia are given too much power to make academic decisions. Develops goal of creating “student- centered” campus and then undermines this by increasing class size, and teaching loads which inevitably lowers teaching quality.
See above.
I cannot point to a single effort that he initiated since becoming president that I can really get behind. The breakup of the colleges had an appearance of doing something but did not have any substantial consequences or benefits.
UT is worse off under the lack of leadership of jacobs. When scarborough openly tellsfaculty if you want to do research go somewhere else, when faculty are told students dont come to toledo for the best, larry burns and his expense account at mancys, this plan is for a bunch of white males to exploit UT financially. The plan pays for golds trips to manhaaten, badgering car dealers for free cars, for jacobs to thumb his nose at toledo and not live in president house, strategic plan of financial bonuses for a failing university
Packs committees to get the outcome he wishes.
Medical school receives greater benefits (i.e. advertising) than academic side of house
What planning? The plan Scarboro plan? What a joke.
I have been quite motivated to learn about Dr. Gold’s current plan of action, and the ever expanding improvment of the institution. I am pleased with the current trajectory.
From Blade articles it appears he has wasted financial resources.
The strategic planning process for the univeristy is a classic example of how this administration operates. An apparently transparent and inclusive process was manipulated to produce the results that the administration desired before starting the process. Numerous members of that process have declared in Faculty Senate (see minutes) that the results of the process were not true outcomes of the imput.
The University has been adrift in a series of directional changes, strategic initiatives and other improvement programs that have made us change directions too frequently.
Again, seems too busy at times to meet the needs of the college although he does try and works hard.
Needs to consult with established constituencies on campus. This is again related
Seems to have no interest in hearing the opinions of anyone in the faculty. Acts without any consideration of possible unintended consequences.
There is a significant disconnect between stakeholders and policy makers on this campus. There is little effort aimed at communicating why decisions are made or at addressing specific concerns of the campus community. Reorganization occurred and is now occurring again in just a few short years. No consideration of future in these decisions. Shouldn’t reorganize a university with an interim provost.
His failure to listen to others or to pay any attention to genuine institutional priorities is disgusting, hurting our entire educational mission.
Organization charts keep changing with little rationale. Hard to keep focused when one finds one’s self in a new college every other year.
6.116 6.117
6.121 6.122
6.123 6.124
6.125 6.126
6.127 6.128
College of Ed: combines 2 colleges, then splits them again within months
There seems to be some confusion among the faculty regarding where the decisions made today are leading us. What is the specific vision for five years down the road? Ten? Twenty? There are also many new programs yearly which are thought up quickly, implemented, then dumped. Suddenly, a year or two later, these same things are re-vamped, renamed, and brought back to life only to be dumped again. Through all this, there never seems to be any attention paid to why these things didn’t work, and none of these things seem to be based on research directed at the goal of the program.
Does not have the preparation for an academic setting. No critical thinking skills. Does not involve faculty or students in decisions. Would improve his performance if he include faculty and students instead of relying on administrators who do everything LJ says-which creates chaos.
There is so much instability that decisions made one day are often overturned the next. One goal is identified, and then we spend much time and money trying to attain it, only to have that goal abandoned within a short time. This instability affects students who don’t even know from year to year what college they are in.
While the President takes an active role in strategic planning, it is not clear if he has chosen the correct course for this university. He has put his heart into it though.
Need to invest in care for the elderly looking at the demographics of the nation
No strategic vision. Seems to want to hide head in sand rather than trying to compete in the community. While medical communities around the country are attracting patients (and donors) by expanding, the UT plan is try and not fail rather than succeed.
I question the wisdom of providing scholarships for residents of urban students simply because of their zipcodes. Students growing up in rural areas do not have similar preferential treatment.
We don’t know what the strategic plan is, so either there isn’t one or it’s been poorly commu- nicated. There are many here with energy and enthusiasm to move UTMC forward, but we are a ship without a course at present.
For all the reasons mentioned above
This is of greatest concern. He has stated openly that there “will be no new footholders” for several years. Yet, he wants campus growth. This is not a growth plan. In fact, without being willing to take on risk in order to grow, we will cease to exist.
Johnnie is generally very effective in organizing meetings. At times, however, Johnnie will focus on routine, relatively unimportant issues rather than dealing with pressing matters at hand.
Yes! I truly enjoyed the process of developing Directions 2011. It was a transformative experi- ence for me. Thank you!
Area 7 Communication/Interpersonal Skills
The extent to which the job requires the President to explain, describe, per- suade, negotiate, and generally convey intended meanings and information to others. Both the media to be used, and the type of message or information to be conveyed, should be considered when assigning degree ratings.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.15
Faculty Respondents
Shows little or no effort to communicate to faculty, stu- 121 dents, staff, external constituencies on a consistent basis. Receives multiple complaints from others about lack of communication. Unable to resolve interpersonal conflicts
without intervention.
Shows effort to communicate, but does so inconsistently. 131 Information stated is not understood by others and is often incorrect. Often requires assistance to resolve in- terpersonal conflicts. Shows effort working with other administrative members.
Provides and presents verbal communication accurately 70 and professionally. Does not require assistance to re- solve interpersonal conflicts. Consistently demonstrates teamwork capabilities.
Shows concern and commitment to ensuring excellent 28 communication practices. Demonstrates teamwork ca- pabilities and makes suggestions on how the team can work together more effectively.
Takes on responsibility to initiate communication with 17 faculty, staff, students, and external constituencies. Works consistently to develop administrative team’s effectiveness.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 15
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 7 begin on the following page.
AREA 7. COMMUNICATION/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 51 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 7 (verbatim)
7.1 Dr. Jacobs makes an effort to communicate via forums, etc... but I have witnessed that he often avoids providing full answers to questions, defers answers to someone else who does the same, or simply dismisses the argument.
7.2 Communication skills meet expectations. However, my perception is that President Jacobs has a tendency to initiate large-scale programs with little or no communication with Staff or Faculty.
7.3 Why send Scarborough out with the bad news on workload changes? Where was Dr. Jacobs in this?
7.4 His messages remain fuzzy and hostile, and and ignoring any value of faculty and student inputs
7.5 Comes across as unwilling to listen to or understand others
7.6 Information is communicated in catch phrases and buzz works that appear to be taken from self-help manuals, popular management books, or the op-ed of the Wall Street Journal. There is no attempt to operationalized these ideas in a manner that is communicated to employees so they can achieve his usually positive if assessed goals. The data behind his decision making is at best unknown. I feel he is running the university from the seat of his pants rather than based on data.
7.7 This is an extremely high priority for Dr. Jacobs and he conveys information clearly - both when he speaks personally and in regard to using media to convey his intended messages.
7.8 Displays arrogant and dismissive attitude toward faculty concerns.
7.9 Dr Jacobs excels at personal promotion but his communication is superficial and primarily self serving. Listening is an important part of communication and he has failed miserably in this regard.
7.10 Dr. Jacob is often patronizing in tone when taking questions whether from media or faculty. He gives pat answers to questions that support his agenda.
7.11 I believe Pres. Jacobs does exceptionally well when communicating to a group directly. How- ever, I would like to see more effort from him as well as other administrators to communicate to internal audiences in a timely way. It is discouraging to read about university affairs/decisions in the Blade before I have heard anything about the decision internally.
7.12 He ignores the CBA - a legal document. He believes that he is above the law. He dismisses the Main campus faculty because it is not medical - the obvious only concern for him.
7.13 The relationship between faculty and admin has been contentious since he took this job. I see little effort on his part to bridge this gap. I don’t hold him fully responsible for the problems, but as a leader, I feel he should put forth more effort to resolve the ongoing conflicts.
7.14 After six years President Jacobs has demonstrated a recort of total incompetence for managing our academic campus. His administration has contributed nothing that could be construed as value-added to the main campus academic mission. Our national, state and regional academic reputation has plummeted since Dr. Jacobs became President.
7.15 Dictatorial and uncommunicative (except for giving edicts which he expects everyone to follow, regardless of how much harm they do the University).
7.16 Tries, but not successful in communicating a message- either himself or through other admin- istrative team
AREA 7. COMMUNICATION/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 52 7.17 Talk does not meet acts, Trust me.
7.18 Continues to ignore the concerns of the faculty in areas of university structure (college reor- ganization), staffing (many failed searches with internal hires - Steinbock, McMillen and more egregiously, Scarborough). Is using the University Council to contain the faculty voice, which he clearly does not want to hear. Despite his many failures (college reorganization which is now being redone, large numbers of schools now being abandoned, enrollment drop more than planned) he continues to not listen to those with experience. He does NOT know best. His experience in only medical schools and his temperament did not prepare him for this position and his performance has borne this out.
7.19 Dr. Jacobs gives no indication that he seriously considers any comments made by the faculty in any context. He has insulated both his administration and the BOT from criticism, constructive or otherwise, by the faculty. Ultimately, he has purposely short circuited the communication pathways.
7.20 zero transparency, consistently mixed messages
7.21 The listening part of Pres. Jacobs communication skills is severely lacking. Faculty have often presented reasonable arguments, but if he has a preconceived opinion, it seems to be hard to get a point across to be considered (I am NOT saying accepted, just considered fairly). When it comes to certain topics, he purposefully does not communicate clean or truthful information, but tries to phrase certain things in a way that will most likely be received incorrectly.
7.22 Poor communication of plans to deal with budget deficit beyond the budget reductions that are possible through workforce reduction and increased workloads for remaining faculty and staff.
7.23 Shoots from the hip without thinking. Changes rationales for proposed actions. Reasons given often have no logical relation to the decision made or the action taken. Makes decrees with serious consideration of input from the people affected by the decision. Won’t consult with Faculty Senate as he is supposed to. Won’t bargain with the unions in a timely and efficient manner. Etc...
7.24 His attempts to communicate via town halls, letters, email, etc. appear to be more of an attempt to manage the message rather than engage in actual dialog with faculty or students.
7.25 Dr. Jacobs ideas are expressed in vague generalities and without sufficient detail to evaluate. Much of it is more like an advertisement than a rigorous plan of thought for action.
7.26 Attempts to communicate, but needs to work on public speaking skills so he is able to come across more personable–like he does in one-on-one meetings.
7.27 His unwillingness or inability to communicate with faculty is the main reason for giving an “unsuccessful” score.
7.28 Although he offers to sepak he is a terrible speaker and gets confrontational when confronted with questions. Tells you one thing - his thing and does not care about faculty input.
7.29 Gets along well with other administrators but not the academicians. Why? Is it better to be “right” than to be “collaborative?”
7.30 Communication is superficial and top down. Examples are the town hall meetings and the new format. He appears to be there to dictate, rather than learn from faculty and students.
7.31 Information is passed along only in damage control mode. There is little or no discussion and debate. And what discussion and debate does occur has all the earmarks of being cursory - in other words, the decision has already been made and the public discussion is for PR only.
7.32 many times i’ve seen him address faculty questions with absolutely no intention of answering directly. He allows questions and ideas to be put forth, and refuses to respond directly. when pressed, his response is to make sure he has the names of those that disagree with him.
7.33 Radical changes in restructuring occur without prior indication much less consultation.
7.34 He may communicate but it is pro-forma. He does not follow up on agreements and does not keep his word. Communication from Jacobs is not worth much.
7.35 AMEN
7.36 Not good at communicating or listening. Says he wants to hear what you have to say or ideas to resolve problems but then quickly counters your idea with what he wants to do. Has publicly put down the faculty and that should never happen. Comes off as a dictator not the leader of a team.
7.37 I do not think he is genuinely interested in communicating. He is interested in giving orders, seem them executed, and give the IMPRESSION of listening and being interested in what others have to say.
7.38 Constantly makes faculty in the Arts & Sciences feel like we’re an impediment to the business of the university rather than part of its core mission.
7.39 The President has been very successful in alienating faculty from doing what we’re supposed to do – viz. a fair balance of teaching and research. He set a good paradigm of how to run a PUBLIC university that self-serves the administration at the cost of faculty, and, consequen- tially, the students. If I were to define his idea of what UT’s mission is it would be something like... “The University of Toledo would be great institution of higher education, if only we didn’t have any faculty or students.” A spot-on legacy.
7.40 Speaks what is on his mind. Tends to cut people off at times, especially if a female
7.41 He is not a good listener. He interrupts. He misunderstands and does not allow people to explain because he thinks he already knows what you are going to say.
7.42 He is a dictator. Yes he takes time to broadcast, articles, townhall but he does not listen to what is really being asked. Always bends comments to move away from thing he does not want to answer
7.43 Very little is communicated about the importance, purpose and value of education– to faculty, staff, students, the community and the legislature.
7.44 The president tends to state his point of view as “agree to disagree” in many instances. This does not encourage discussion. He uses public venues, such as the video messages on the home page, which offer only one way communication.
7.45 The President needs to work on his communication skills, as he does not often hear from others outside of his cabinet.
7.46 Dr. Jacob’s communication with the faculty lacks the ability to inspire confidence or heighten morale. It is one way.....he talks and expects the faculty to listen. When he does engage in dialogue with the faculty it is clear that the decisions have already been made and that the “conversation” is for appearances only.
7.47 He makes unilateral decisions without effective consultation. He consistently shows lack of respect for faculty members and the academic process in general.
7.48 Dr Jacobs misinforms, or just lies, about budget issues, his intentions for the future. The accounting practices of this administration need to be investigated because as Dr. Jacobs has argued, you can get any result you want, just change your assumptions.
7.49 Dr. Jacobs provides communication to faculty. On the downside, he does not use faculty input in most decisions and sometimes acts without considering faculty perspectives. A chronic pattern under his administration has been the quick initiation of a program/policy that leads to poorer outcomes b/c faculty input was not considered or utilized.
7.50 need for more pro-active and timely mechanisms for feedback; decisions are shared but not necessarily opportunities to provide input on plans or upcoming events at times that would allow them to be modified.
7.51 Faculty tenure decisions in my college are held up at the President’s level with no further resolution (either for or against tenure), putting faculty in limbo for months or longer.
7.52 Persistently and openly demonstrates contempt toward faculty.
7.53 Dr. Gold consistently provides opportunities to convey any important information as well as exercises various venues to deliver information.
7.54 Dr. Jacobs regularly communicates his disregard for faculty expertise. Communication to students and public seems ingenuine and obfuscatory: he claims to be engaged and to care, and demonstrates otherwise.
7.55 unmitigated arrogance, my way or the highway, creation of the 3 new colleges this year from the JHCOEHSHS which was created 24 months prior, both creation with no input from any constituencies.
7.56 “Communication” in this case consists of telling (occasionally) subordinates (and that’s just about everybody) what the upper echelon has decided to do.
7.57 His communication skills are poor to non-existant. He limits his communications to conveying dictates with virtually no feedback loops.
7.58 Only speaks in talking points promoting his agenda. Acts like a politician rather than a University President.
7.59 Responds directly to requests, despite busy schedule.
7.60 I am not sure how well the president actually works with others as opposed to pushing his agenda.
7.61 There are few efforts to negotiate with various constituency groups. Instead, messages seem to be dictated with a top-down style.
7.62 Communication to faculty done through those under her. No discussion during faculty meetings, only presentation. Does not give the impression that she wants to hear any opinion other than her own.
7.63 His communication style is that decisions are made first and then he communicates what needs to be done.
7.64 I have had limited personal communication with Dr. Jacobs, but public meetings and TV communication appears to be adequate. Some of what he says is painful, but I appreciate the responsibility of running this BIG business.
7.65 I often feel that the information is twisted or ’spun’ to meet the needs of the administration rather than being entirely truthful in actuality or in spirit.
AREA 7. COMMUNICATION/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 55 7.66 He talks politely and softly.
7.67 I sense most of the communication from the president, and the news outlets he uses, is propa- ganda. The president has never come to my college to talk with the faculty, or to visit with the students. Apparently, he is too busy to do so, since he has been invited. The messaging he uses seems patronizing. The changes that are occurring in the university to establish new colleges has been largely kept a secret. At least the last time he rearranged the university in 2010, he held a town hall session that was simulcast on the internet to announce it.
7.68 I have heard of the talking that as a faculty member we need to teach more and get paid less. I frankly don’t understand the rationale behind the projected actions. I think President Jacobs has failed to communicate efficiently with the faculty members.
7.69 President Jacobs has made some efforts to communicate with the faculty, but continues to make sweeping decisions without much feedback from his various constituent bodies.
7.70 The fact he prohibits direct communication among stake holders (faculty-BOT, members of the BOT-The Press, for example) supports the theory that he wants to control all flow of information. He refuses to recognize data, once his mind is made up. The recent court ruling that he failed to communicate effectively before reorganizing Arts & Sciences supports my opinino.
7.71 I feel that President Jacobs’ communication skills are weak, particularly when it comes to his spontaneous remarks in public meetings with University personnel. I feel that he condescending to the point of being disrespectful in his relations with faculty.
7.72 Dr. Jacobs seems to make no efforts and real communication with any group. In his own words, he makes efforts to “spin” a situation. No real information is provided, questions are not answered. Even the basic information we need to get our jobs done is not given to us or is not timely. We get conflicting messages or nothing at all. Dr. Jacobs seems to have worked hard in his communication to have developed an us vs. them relationship with faculty, students, and staff and so even when he has sought to address real problems, he can’t do so effectively. Additionally, as a member of the UT community, I find his articles in the Huffington Post, highlighting and taking pride in his bullying and poor relationships to be an embarrassment for the entire University.
7.73 I find that Dr. Jacobs does an outstanding job of communicating his vision and plans to the campus community. On occasions when I meet him personally, he is always cordial and approachable.
7.74 Comes across as confrontational. Listens respectfully, but not clear he really “listens”. However no question about the accuracy of basic facts (as opposed to opinions) he cites. Mitigating: some faculty have been needlessly confrontational and provocative
7.75 Needs to show more meaningful and obvious consultation with constituencies, that result in changed positions.
7.76 Did not clearly explain the justification MC college reorganization. He has not appeared to have made any effort to negotiate a faculty contract. Many faculty believe he has appointed an unqualified provost.
7.77 the proposal for an increased courseload - never heard anything from the president.
7.78 Doesn’t listen. Has his mind made up and that’s it. Bullies.
7.79 Dr. Jacobs is not an effective public speaker for large groups. He is highly intelligent and thoughtful in his replies but, over time, his communication style towards Deans and faculty has morphed into a one-way communication.
AREA 7. COMMUNICATION/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 56 7.80 Pres. Jacobs communication style is confrontational, sometimes without regard for others’
input. I have personally experienced/observed this on more than one occasion.
7.81 likes loooong words. communication style has alienated faculty.
7.82 He understands that public health and medicine are meant to be integrated and is working extraordinarily hard to ensure that more public health is getting into the medical curriculum. He is ethical, moral, and does the job right. He understands that it is really the union folks that do the whining.
7.83 Actively seeks feedback, regularly communicates with faculty, students, and community. Listens well, acts on feedback, explains positions, actions, goals, long term plans. Clear about his expectations from faculty.
7.84 He communicates well, but is a micromanager deficient in teamwork capabilities. 7.85 always open to direct communication 7.86 Open door policy; keenly aware of needs and tries best to promote productivity. 7.87 Dr Jacob has excellent communication skills.
7.88 Unfortunately, in the role of the president, it is difficult to always please everyone. However, I think Dr. Jacobs is always professional and tries to communicate the email, meetings and other relevant avenues.
7.89 Information is “often incorrect” should be, more appropriately, myopic to his particular vision.
7.90 My view is that the President does communicate accurately and professionally. However, I am not convinced that the President consistently demonstrates teamwork capabilities. I suspect that his team is a more narrow group of individuals that I would consider to be the University team. Decisions are made for and to us.
7.91 Dr Jacobs shows little regard for the faculty. He makes pronouncements rather than engaging in discussion. He speaks in generalities and is uncomfortable with details.
7.92 Remote. Does not seem interested in the success of the “Main” Campus.
7.93 At the start of Dr. Jacobs tenure, I would have rated his communication skills as needing improvement, but as he has grown into the job or I have grown to know him, I think that this skills have improved and he thoughtfully approaches issues with the appropriate words. Someone that I know who is a UT alumnus & not a faculty member likes that he takes the time to shake hands with people at the football tail-gate parties, etc.
7.94 Lectures more than communicates
7.95 Communications from are often after the fact. His general tone is gruff and his communication is often designed to be exclusively one-way.
7.96 He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He twists the truth to his own benefit and responds to question he only wants to answer. He needs to be able to listen and compromise. Ir not always his way or the highway.
7.97 not particularly clear at this point what his involvement on HSC is other than to personally approve or disapprove new hires, meet with faculty seeking promotion
7.98 Dr. Jacobs appears to be more interested in making “proclamations” stating that things must be a certain way, even when that is not true. He also appears to spend all of his time on HSC rather than MC and apparently does not care what happens on MC.
7.100 7.101
7.102 7.103
7.105 7.106
7.107 7.108
7.109 7.110 7.111
7.114 7.115
Dr. Jacobs does communicate in a variety of ways, but often it seems like communication takes place after the fact: the decision has already been made; now live with it. Good communication is a two-way street. It should also be okay to let people share opinions that conflict.
His way or the highway. One way communication of dominance.
It is a one-way communication from administration to faculty. Sure, we can voice our concerns, but they are ignored.
Does not communicate to faculty at all without being demeaning
Dr. Jacobs needs to work on his listening skills. It often seems like his communication with staff and faculty are simply pro forma, with the attitude of “I know I’m supposed to pretend to care what you think, so here I am pretending to listen.” Town Hall sessions and other open forums wind up not being about the genuine exchange of ideas but rather about the president’s public relations objectives. Scholarly give-and-take is the heart of the university, but if the ultimate decision-makers will not listen to and truly participate in that sometimes-messy exchange, then we do not have the opportunity to come to the best path of action. There are a lot of smart and dedicated people working at the university; I wish Dr. Jacobs would recognize that and take advantage of it.
He should show some interest in what we do - he has never come to our department. He seems to operate from a top down communication style only.
Very little is communicated to the faculty until after decisions have been made.
He lacks institutional memory, seems challenged remembering, has the interpersonal skills of gravel
Arrogant beyond belief
The president has still not successfully explained why he gave $10 million to start-up businesses, but is trying to increase class sizes and teaching loads. I also heard through the grapevine that he tried to close Apple Tree, the campus nursery school. He clearly has the wrong priorities.
Makes unilateral decisions with little to no input from faculty
“Dictator” comes to mind
There is no question that he is a great orator, and maintains communications in various ways to the UT community–UT portal, meetings, emails, newsletter, etc. He is very concise, logical and thorough in his presentation. I always feel I have an understanding of the issues at hand.
Dr. Jacobs states that he believes in the concept of shared governance, but his actions show otherwise. His adminstration makes decisions, that either should, or would better, be taken in consonance with stakeholders, such as the faculty, then communicates the decision after it has been taken. This is not effective communication. Communication is a two-way street. Part of it is listening to the ideas of others, not just giving lip-service to that concept. Dr. Jacobs ineffective communication style is part of the reason that moral is so low on campus; campus members don’t believe that he considers their ideas valuable.
Communications have been mostly in response to crisis situations or take the form of town hall meetings where vague answers and tap dances are used to dodge tough questions.
Communication skills are improving. I have had litle contact with Dr. Gold but that little I have had has been very good.
7.116 7.117
7.118 7.119 7.120
7.122 7.123
7.124 7.125
7.126 7.127 7.128 7.129
Sometimes we only hear about issues after it is already late in the process, and to late to do anything except respond to the issues.....too late to have any influence on the outcome.
The communication abilities of President Jacobs are quite embarassing to this institution. I have been around President Jacobs numerous times at different events and he seems to lack the ability to listen before interrupting with his own thoughts! In many cases, I have even observed him changing the topic completely! He has tried to make the student body aware of the administrative functions by hosting the “Presidential Perspective”. However, President Jacobs’ communication style is very poor and embarassing. If you compare President Jacobs to other university presidents, you will find him significantly lacking in this feature. And where are the millions of dollars that university presidents should raise for fundraising? They aren’t there! This is a significant loss to our university!
Most communication is top down if any. Often communication exacerbates problems instead of solving them. Demonstrates little respect for faculty.
Dr. Jacobs communication has been lacking. From wanting to “throw a dean under a bus” to inadequate consultation with faculty on reorganization, it is deficient in nearly every fashion.
Great communicator, very knowledgeable about content areas. Really terrific. Only minor criticism: sometimes communicates too much; input from others may not be sought or time provided for such input.
On several occasions of interaction with faculty he has a tendency to stubbornly stick to his views. He shows no ability of listening to another point of view. This is a major deficiency in his ability to communicate.
On many occasions I have seen him, when confronted with polite, well reasoned opposition, become completely unresponsive.
Communicates frequently to the community through electronic resources and less frequently in face to face settings. Team work is in place at upper levels of administration. It’s just not experienced throughout the university.
Arrogance and ignorance of higher education do not make for an acceptable leader.
Dr. Jacobs struggles to connect with faculty. I think he wants to, but does not really to know how to go about it. Because of this, he seems to tend to give orders, rather than elicit faculty help in solving problems.
I am concerned about the recent decisions regarding termination of contracts to assist women needing medical help if having difficulties post-abortion. It seems that the published responses and comments coming from Dr. Jacobs’ office were not very well-put.
Many complaints about his lack of communication. He communicates with adminstrators, BOT. Does not effectively communicate with students or staff. Seems to value only physicians and administrators. Has no regard or respect for faculty.
The President tries to cloud important issues with verbose and obtuse rhetoric, often times saying what people wish to hear with later actions that do not match. He is impatient and appears to have little respect for different points of view.
Rather than try to communicate with faculty, the president seems determined to antagonize them. The creation of the University Council and the requirement that each governance body change their constitution to reflect this body is a excellent example of this. Since the president was unhappy with the Faculty Senate, he decided to create a body above the Senate that he could control.
7.132 7.133
I have long been a supporter of the Jacobs administration, but this past year has made me question and reconsider my loyalties. It is difficult to figure out what this administration’s plan is for the University. While they have clearly annunciated A plan, it is not clear what THE plan is. The actions of the administration do not match its words, which makes it very difficult to continue to support their plans and policies. For example: (i) Why do they say they value students’ educations and then either increase the teaching load of good faculty, making it harder for them to deliver high quality instruction, or focus on staff who only teach and are not experts in their field? This is a major mistake, in my opinion. It is very difficult for UT to attract excellent faculty so instead we have primarily good to mediocre faculty, but now we will be relying on even less qualified instructors to educate our students. An excellent teacher without a deep knowledge of the subject is not an acceptable instructor at this level. I will not send my children to this institution. They cannot afford to be poorly educated, even with free tuition. (ii) Why do they want to spend $18M on a center that will teach very few students and bring in very little money when they could make a much bigger impact by spending the same money on the students on the main campus. Further, ProMedica has withdrawn its $18M commitment to this project, so now the administration is on the hook for $36M. To proceed with this project is very simply fiscal mismanagement. Ironic, since the main campus faculty has become more efficient yet they are being asked to bear the burden of this boondoggle. The health sciences campus is sorely in need of improvement, in particular with regard to efficiency and fiscal re-evaluation. Currently it is widely perceived as a major drain on the resources of this institution. If UT were a business, it would have been sold off or liquidated by now. Perhaps it makes sense to separate the institutions again. (iii) Why do they say they value research and then cut the faculty’s research commitment in half? UT had made tremendous progress toward finally being recognized as a relevant research institution, but this new policy threatens to undo all of this hard work. Personally, I have always have several grants (typically 3 or 4, totaling $250k-$400k per year) at any given time, but these new policies encourage me to do the minimum amount of work by maintaining only a single contract at a time, since managing each of these external contracts consumes a tremendous amount of time. In all likelihood, however, I will simply relocate my research program at an institution with better resources and a higher stature. It is the best people who are most able to improve their position by leaving, so why should anyone successful stay at a weakened institution? (iv) Why do they tell the main campus faculty that they want them to get out of the laboratory and get into the classroom, yet they are already in the classroom. They seem to have the main campus faculty confused with the health sciences campus faculty. It is my understanding that very few of them spend much time in a classroom and spend a lot of time doing unfunded or under-funded research. I am unaware of any similar demands being made of health sciences campus faculty. Perhaps this is a failure in communication? The administration claims that this is the ???new normal??? in post secondary education. I have spoken with many colleagues in different institutions around the country and VERY few of them report any similar developments of changes in operations. Even the University of California system has faired far better than UT. I cannot make sense of the administration???s message, as described above and in the context of my own observations around our nation, therefore I can no longer support and defend this administration.
Needs to make it to individual department meetings and interact with faculty.There is a lot of distance between faculty and Dean.I feel it is very essential for facultu BUY IN in to programs that UT wants initiated and impelemented successfully.
Will willfully go against recommendations from experts on topics
Although President Jacobs does make a great deal of effort to communicate, he does not communicate in a manner that is acceptable to the faculty/staff/students. He is arrogant and narrowly focused and does not appear to be in touch with the academic needs of the university.
Often does not gather key stake holders to discuss options, but instead makes independent decisions arbitrarily.
AREA 7. COMMUNICATION/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 60 7.135 Jake makes an effort to communicate effectively with constituents.
7.136 I think this is one area that improvement is possible. I can only speak from the perspective of a faculty. I feel that Dr. Jacobs prefers to mandate to faculty as opposed to create teamwork. I think Dr. Jacobs uses the governance structure accurately but does not wish to engage faculty outside of the governance structure. He is missing some good ideas.
7.137 Good speaker, communicates clearly
Area 8 Human Capital Management
The extent to which the administrator is able to attract, develop, and retain high-quality faculty and staff.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Unsuccessful: Needs Improvement: Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 1.93
Faculty Respondents
Is not actively involved in recruitment and retention ac- 147 tivities. Does not seem to be clear on the relationship of high-quality staff to achievement of strategic objectives. Interpersonal skill set is very weak.
Needs coaching to improve related skills in conflict res- 121 olution, listening, emotional control, etc. Staffing deci- sions are not always in line with strategic direction of university or division.
Sees the importance of recruitment and retention and 45 takes steps to improve the processes. Is able to adapt in- terpersonal communication styles to meet needs of staff. Looks for ways to develop internal talent.
Is an active proponent during recruitment and selection 21 of staff. Sells the university to prospective candidates. Maintains openness and transparency in communication with internal and external constituencies.
Advances the university by actively engaging stakehold- 12 ers in strategic visioning, assessing and aligning human capital needs, and assigning resources appropriately. Considers selection of high-quality staff of paramount importance.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 36
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 8 begin on the following page.
AREA 8. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 62 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 8 (verbatim)
8.1 I honestly don’t know how to answer this question. Dr. Jacobs is TOO involved in some aspects of the faculty hiring: ie: tenure decisions. And he is TOO actively involved in recruitment and hiring of friends in high and low places to serve as recruitment advisers and directors of business investment centers.
8.2 Although I understand the vision of the University/COMLS to only recruit faculty that have active research funding, I feel that is a very short-sighted approach to growing the research enterprise.
8.3 This is his worse quality.
8.4 Because he is openly hostile to all faculty and lower-level staff, he is driving the quality of our faculty and staff down. He will probably be remembered as the person who destroyed the University of Toledo.
8.5 he alienated best people in UT, surrounded himself with the meanest and least qualified. many faculty are looking around to move from UT ASAP
8.6 Has taken the morale of faculty and staff on main campus to an all-time low through arrogant, bullying leadership style.
8.7 I’ve worked under Dr. Jacob’s leadership, and I think that he views management as a form of Taylorism coupled with de-skilling. He pays lip services to the purposes of a university without understanding that it only functions in trust, communication, and a shared value–truth and knowledge. I wish he would understand the difference between a university and a trade school, and arts and sciences and a professional program such as medicine, law, or pharmacy. The lack of support for research (other than clinical medical faculty) is clearly demonstrated in the lack of financial support to the university libraries. Absent a solid research foundation, the research mission of the university (and GRANTS)as well as the teaching mission will fail.
8.8 Faculty recruitment and retention has been a big problem, given the continual uncertainty about employment conditions.
8.9 He has had almost zero success in gaining respect from faculty. People will not follow or coalesce behind someone that they do not respect. He is an ineffective manager.
8.10 Oh wow...check with me in a year when these half-baked workload demands have resulted in the loss of our best faculty. Stay tuned.
8.11 Frequent rash & short sighted decisions cause faculty to feel as if their jobs rely on shifting ground.
8.12 At my level, I question the wisdom of our current method for program support. It seems that strong programs and weaker programs have been treated the same during our long years of fiscal difficulties. Strong programs continue to be weakened with lack of financial support to maintain their strength. It seems that we will be left with a lot of very mediocre programs struggling to get by.
8.13 Have him resolve the faculty contract, and then high-qualify faculty might consider staying.
8.14 Allocate main campus budget to medical campus is not a moral act.
8.15 Faculty lines are down across the board and rather than address this issue we are pushed to increase enrollments and course load. You can’t have more students and less faculty and have a successful university. This is just not logical.
AREA 8. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 63 8.16 The record shows that high quality faculty have fled and that his relations with remaining
faculty, and especially tenured faculty, are dismal.
8.17 The dramatic loss of faculty and staff makes it difficult to achieve institutional goals. Many of those goals seem contradictory to hiring patters. For example a focus on the Honor’s program while at the same time reducing instructional staff and increasing class size.
8.18 Does not genuinely care about faculty, staff or students, but does use students as cashcows and likes to bully staff and faculty.
8.19 Seems at odds with his faculty (not listening?)
8.20 UT alumni and life-time Toledo residents seem to make up most of the faculty and staff.
8.21 He is not pulling us together to face external challenges. He clearly does not have the ability to do so.
8.22 current policies will have profound negative effect on recruitment and retention
8.23 Until last year, I would have been willing to settle with “meets expectations”. However, the recent comments, broadcasts, letters etc. demonstrate that President Jacobs either has no grasp of what the proposed strategies will do to the development and retention of the faculty body, or no interest in examining it.
8.24 His foolish policies and lack of understanding of academics and the role of professoriate in teaching, research, and service leads to conditions and conflicts that scare many good candidates from applying for positions, or accepting positions, and have caused several of our top-notch faculty to find employment elsewhere.
8.25 There is no human capital management of faculty and staff in terms of attracting and retaining. There is no human capital development of faculty.
8.26 UT has lost considerable talent, some of which was deliberately driven away by Dr. Jacobs. More will leave and would have already left were the job market not so challenging.
8.27 Does not seem clear that individuals who are from other fields are often unable to understand the daily life of a faculty member. Believes that teaching a course or being associated with a medical school is sufficient. Makes no attempt to really find out.
8.28 The new workload and other policies will make it impossible to attract high-quality faculty. Morale has never been lower.
8.29 The lack of communication between faculty and administrators, the selection of the provost demonstrate a lack of respect for faculty and staff. The way salary negotiations are handled indicates a level of contempt for faculty and staff. All while giving and receiving bonuses to administrators. Leadership by example is best.
8.30 Staff and administrators are selected based on their willingness to execute the president’s plans, rather than on independent leadership qualities.
8.31 Good faculty are leaving fast.
8.32 Appears he is able to hire and promote staff without degrees and without following the HR or AAUP or AA office. Examples are Kaye Patten-Wallace, Chuck Lenhart, his family members, Iona Duca and I could go on and on.
8.33 Moving towards hiring lectures would be a wonderful idea; however, treating them as second class faculty to T/TT employees is going to cause a rift and be detrimental to productivity and service.
AREA 8. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 64 8.34 Staffing decisions for his vice presidents are the old boys network.
8.35 High paid, yes, but not high quality. The work environment for faculty is toxic. Students are paying premium tuition for larger classes, overworked instructors, and price gouging.
8.36 Administration has exhibited minimal openness and transparency.
8.37 People seem to be hired specifically for their lack of knowledge so they will depend on Jacobs and be loyal strictly to him.
8.38 The comments under Unsuccessful are accurate in describing this bully.
8.39 No desire to recruit or retain high quality faculty. Increasing teaching loads and decreasing research time is evidence of this. Within my college our workload assessments indicate faculty are teaching 2-3 times the maximum level and we do not get more faculty to offset this. He only cares about getting more for less and does not care if he burns out people or decreases the quality of education provided.
8.40 All highly research active faculty I know about, including myself, are looking for places some- where else. This is not surprising since he wants an army of “yes, Sir” lecturers to churn out diplomas like a McDonald’s produces bad and unhealthy hamburgers.
8.41 Again, see the “take it out on faculty” attitude
8.42 Best of luck in recruiting high-quality faculty with an eight-course teaching load.
8.43 Tends to brush people off or discount their ideas
8.44 Although we have lines that are needed for accreditation - we have not been able to hire anyone. And good faculty are retiring. So there is not recruitement or retention
8.45 It is going to be hard to attract high-quality faculty with the current course load requirements plus only unfunded research is considered adequate
8.46 We do not see administrators coming to UT who demonstrate that they value education.
8.47 Plans to eliminate part faculty cannot be realistic in terms of the needs in our department. If enrollment does increase, who will teach the core courses/
8.48 The President has surrounded himself with administrators with little experience in their posi- tions, and the criteria for hiring appears to be more loyalty than competence.
8.49 Dr. Jacobs has no ability to attract high-quality faculty or administrators. As evidence of this, the vast majority of administrative appointments have been internal. Undoubtedly, the word is out in the higher ed community....stay away fro UT. His latest initiatives (in the form of the Provost’s directives) will cause SIGNIFICANT loss of faculty talent. In my department, our three top young faculty members are all looking for other jobs due to their dissatisfaction with the current waive of policies (one has alreay accepted a position with one of our competitors). This is happening across the university, and it will take YEARS to recover.
8.50 So many ground-level staff positions have been eliminated that students are not being served well. Staff members who are left have difficulty keeping up with the workload. Talented faculty members are discouraged and are leaving rather than continue working in this environment.
8.51 He has lowered higher education in his pursuit of inferior distance learning classes. He has excellerated a rush to replace Ph.D. holding faculty with lecturers. Again short term gains in exchange for loss of longterm reputation.
8.52 The new changes will make it difficult to recruit or attract new talent.
8.53 Creates an environment of strong animosity toward faculty and staff, following the principle “if you don’t like it here than just leave”. Policy of cutting essential service positions while expanding administration.
8.54 Has cut support staff and faculty to the point that we can barely maintain programs at the same time that has hired consultants without following basic established procedures for vetting positions and with total disregard for affirmative action.
8.55 the whole fiasco on research faculty says it all.
8.56 NO justification necessary to add another vice president or “consultant,” micro justification necessary to hire or retain the “human assets” that actually serve our client base.
8.57 He has appointed a Provost whose idea (with his support) is that if people want to leave, so be it. We can always replace those who leave.
8.58 Suggesting that we are a research oriented university then having his minions attack research active faculty is reprehensible.
8.59 I believe that we will lose research faculty of high caliber since we do not appear to be supporting research goals as we did in the past.
8.60 I feel like the serf that came with the barony.
8.61 This is not a priority for the current administration.
8.62 He and his administrative team bear all the burdens to solve the problems which they cannot.
8.63 Mostly a style issue for me here. I am a concensus fan not a dictator fan.
8.64 Has had little success working with the faculty to improve the university during tough times. I will lay blame with the union for this as well.
8.65 This is a disaster.
8.66 See above. The greatest asset of the university is its faculty. The faculty, and the staff who interact daily with the customers, are the lifeblood of the business. Why does Dr. Jacobs berate and mistrust the faculty and staff who do the day-to-day work of the business? In most organizations, good work, that grows the business, is rewarded. Poor or marginal work, that causes decline in the business, is eliminated. This standard principle of successful business is missing at UT.
8.67 He seems to hire and promote cronies.
8.68 It is highly likely that plans implemented by the current administration will results in a huge loss of talents faculty and staff from this institution. Poor salary schemes and huge workloads will drive qualified individuals away from this institution.
8.69 You will not attract top faculty with the teaching load mandate. Lack of technical support has professors soldering wires together just to keep labs running.
8.70 Very proactive and encouraging of faculty participation in college affairs.
8.71 It seems to be a clear goal to NOT attract the best and the brightest – in fact we have been told, at least at the faculty level, it is ok if the best faculty leave – Great message about what we want for our students. In the upper administation it seeems the strategy is to hire those who could never get such a position in another university so that they are beholden to the President and cannot act with any real indepedence.
AREA 8. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 66 8.72 The quality of faculty and leadership I see around me is high, and has risen steadily during my
time here at UT.
8.73 Has recruited excellent department chairs, in general, though several of them are deeply frus- trated by changes in institutional policies or promises of resources that didn’t materialize.
8.74 Probably OK with immediate reporting line (VPs, Provost, Chancellor, his own staff) but little or no understanding of the role of academic staff.
8.75 He doesn’t care about improving the reputation of UT by hiring good people.
8.76 Doesn’t care about ’high-quality’ staff, just his administrators and the money.
8.77 Faculty have lost confidence in searches run by upper-administration. There is a fair or unfair perception that he sets up the make-up of decision bodies to enable him to engineer the result he wanted in the first place. He has taken a VERY adversarial relationship with faculty in terms of contract negotiations. Bowling Green has already worked out a five year deal and we have had three years without raises or a contract. There is the strong perception that he is not bargaining in good faith or really values faculty. He has unnecessarily stressed out faculty that are up for tenure and allowed a very long gap between individual meetings and decision offered. Last year, he had his letters pre-written in most cases.
8.78 Attracting high-quality faculty and staff remains a positive for the university, though I don’t know how much that has to do with the President, as much as it does solid academic programs, department chairs, and Deans. Development and retention have become a significant concern, as morale among faculty and staff is the lowest I have ever seen - I have worked here nearly 15 years.
8.79 Just don’t count on the promises once you’ve signed.
8.80 Search processes for senior administrators are badly flawed and do not do enough to attract talented administrators from successful institutions with national reputations. Too many inside hires.
8.81 There is currently little done to attract or retain high quality faculty. The University of Toledo has very little to offer these faculty.
8.82 Makes effective bond with all elements of the community, including faculty,students, custodians, dining service, and maintenance workers. Is frequently out meeting, greeting, and getting feedback. Sets an excellent example for others. Has high expectations for ethical behavior as well as competence from coaches to professors.
8.83 UTMC has always been known as a turn door institution. Good people come and then they leave.
8.84 We have lost, are losing, and will continue to lose talented and successful faculty and staff due to their dissatisfaction with the administration including the HSC Provost and directions they are taking this university. The situation now is, if a faculty or staff member is able to make a move,they usually do.
8.85 Are you kidding? No faculty member who has any aspirations to have a successful research career would come anywhere near UT. I would not encourage colleagues to apply for a job at UT.
8.86 many gifted faculty had left the institution. The new hired faculty are mostly at junior level 8.87 Involves others, treats all people with dignity and respect. Good personal communication skills.
AREA 8. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 67 8.88 My impression is that the ranks of the administration have swelled while faculty and colleges
have been left to do more with less staff support.
8.89 As in politics, fear is a potent motivator. Faculty and staff are downright frightened about staff reductions, workloads and a general sense of being demeaned. This behavior has no place in leading human capital at a University.
8.90 Have we not learned by now that central planning does not work? The attitude of the ad- ministration and by extension the President there is no longer any meaningful role for deans and chairs. I agree that there are plenty of under performing faculty but the one size fits all approach will have a disastrous effect on faculty morale, at least on the Main Campus. Work with chairs and deans to reward productive faculty and retire under-performing faculty. UT will no longer be able to hire good faculty because teaching loads are one or two courses less at UT’s competitors. It could well bleed into the fall enrollment and then we truly are all in trouble.
8.91 Faculty is not considered a priority at this university unless the ability to generate revenue is attached
8.92 Enrollment drops, retention drops, financial picture is bleaker and yet administrators remain and are promoted. Faculty lines are lost.
8.93 I have not always agreed with his choices for major leadership positions.
8.94 Based on the University’s finances, he may be a bit limited in this regard.
8.95 He is capable of hiring consultants and high paying executives over teaching staff who are the work horses of the university. for every 5 executive with a salary of $300 K or more the university could hire 10-12 faculty who could generate more revenue for the same expense. Penny wise and pound foolish!!!!
8.96 values advanced degrees in nursing, but discourages faculty and students from pursuing ad- vanced degrees in other related fields.
8.97 see comments above.
8.98 While this may be true of the HSC, it is not true of MC. The new regulations handed down by his admininstration would have the opposite effect to that proposed here. Highly qualified people are more likely to leave under his Administration than to be retained or attracted to UT.
8.99 Morale is very low at the University. Just when we are getting settled into new colleges with new leadership, things change and we are unsettled again. Change is a good thing, but too much change over a short period of time tends to make employees less productive: learning new work, being afraid for their jobs. It’s hard to do one’s best in this kind of environment.
8.100 If the economy were better many would probably at least been looking if not already left. Good faculty are frustrated by a top down bureaucracy who continue to be asked to do more with less and cannot even get a CBA together in a reasonable time.
8.101 has greatly wronged some well-deserving faculty members with regard to their contracted terms of employment.
8.102 Dr. Jacobs recruits the wrong people for huge salaries and does not try and keep the fac- ulty/staff that have proven themselves
8.103 Repeatedly makes poor choices for positions of leadership. Also trends to pile too much re- sponsibility on administrators without giving them the resources to succeed.
8.104 8.105
8.106 8.107
8.108 8.109
8.111 8.112
8.113 8.114
8.117 8.118 8.119 8.120
I have seen too many valuable people leave under his administration and the hiring of upper level administration who are not qualified for the job (for example the current Provost who is an accountant and does not understand what professors do)
The morale on campus is very low and not conducive to attracting high quality faculty. The ongoing restructuring and breaking up of Colleges and units into non-complementary pieces are not helpful either. What the restructuring is expected to accomplish has not been clearly communicated.
Howmanyphonesringunanswered,whatdidtheslentshopperreportreveal,howhasstaff/faculty attrition increased in last five years
I think that he is trying to get full-time faculty to quit so that he can replace them with a cheaper alternative: part-timers.
we are expected to increase our productivity by 25
Emphasis on “new normal” detracts from faculty’s abiity to do research or service and Univer- sity’s ability to recruit outstand faculty
The facutly are nothing more than chess pieces to be moved around the chessboard as the BOT and administration see fit. It seems none of our highly education minds have anything to contribute in this corporate model of higher education.
During these times of financial stress, he should share in the pain and give back a proportionate share of his salary or refuse bonuses.
I have seen evidence where he has flown off the handle to discipline an employee on the basis of student hearsay. Fails to realize that departments are losing faculty at alarming rates without any plan for replacing those positions lost, leet alone to grow the departments.
Every effort is made
Quite simply, we are losing tenure faculty lines. While not all of this can be blamed on the Jacobs administration, when you are in charge, you are responsible for the failures that occur.
For faculty and staff that are working hard to manage the institution, the need to go to the President for every minor hiring decision has become a source of humor. It might do the President well to entrust some of this decision making to others lower in the ranks, coupled with holding such individuals ACCOUNTABLE for the financial implications of those decisions. It is easy to criticize the President, however, maybe some of these go away when others become responsible for the financial implications of what goes on in their department, school, or college
Almost all of my colleagues who can find other positions at other universities are leaving. Three faculty I know already left directly due to his disrespect for them. We are losing high quality people everyday due to his human resource management style.
His decisions are turning the institution into a place where no young and talented faculty will choose to come.
The policies implemented by this administration have resulted in losing faculty and staff who feel under-appreciated, particularly as compared to the value placed on administrators.
Appoints people decidedly unprepared for their jobs and doesn’t listen to those who understand what the university needs.
Dr. Jacobs has developed an adversarial role with many faculty on the main campus and this has caused some faculty to question his valuing of them as employees. Published statements made by Dr. Jacobs that bash faculty are a symptom of this underlying problem.
8.121 8.122
8.123 8.124
8.125 8.126
8.127 8.128
8.129 8.130
8.132 8.133 8.134
UT has let top teachers and researchers go rather than working to keep them. Recent devel- opments and statements from another office will result in losing more.
Work morale is at an all-time low, and still going down. Work satisfaction of faculty is disre- garded. Having clauses that threaten faculty and staff if speaking negatively about any aspect of the university clearly point to the fact that something is very wrong: In a healthy work environment, employees wouldn’t have to be told to be loyal and proud of their workplace.
Unsure of what exactly the strategic direction is regarding a direct line to my specific faculty, which is the English department.
Does not actively recruit or retain faculty. Tries to eliminate more experienced and higher paid faculty. Instead he wants to fill the college with inexperienced faculty who are parttime and lower paid. Unfortunately experienced faculty could help him to improve his performance and improve the university-if he would listen to them.
Consistent discusions about economic development and assisting the community are met with layoffs at the University. Staffing in critical areas are critically low yet there is a growing number of Deans and adminstrative positions. Student service are suffering.
Selecting someone with no experience as a faculty member to be provost is an example of the president’s poor management of human resources. There was a least one much more qualified person who interviewed for the position. But it is as if the president does not want anyone from outside the university entering into the leadership, showing deep insecurity.
Retain faculty needs addressed.
Many high quality faculty leave because of frustrations with lack of vision for university and medical school
Has been very difficult to work with in recruiting key faculty in my limted experience. Fails to recognize the value many faculty provide apart from their clincal practice.
Individual programs, their faculty and staff, and the students themselves are what brings people to campus and retains them. The administration is serving to frustrate and anger people and has resulted in loss of faculty, staff and students.
Is able to attract but not retain high quality faculty. This is likely due to lack of follow through on promises made during the interview process.
Johnnie does try to engage the faculty and staff and encourage their development as individuals.
the morale of faculty and staff is at an all time low and continues to go down
I just wish that Dr. Gold would be able to get rid of a few administrators that have not met the expectations of the University. It is OK to admit the person did not work out and that keeping them on is more harmful than good.
Area 9 Problem Solving and Decision-Making
The extent of decision-making effectiveness and problem anticipation.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations: Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.11
Faculty Respondents
Unable to find solutions to basic problems. Does not 109 demonstrate an understanding of the decision making and problem solving process. Does not delegate often. Decisions may not be consistent with strategic direction
of university.
Settles often for first solution, rather than exploring all 141 possibilities. May demonstrate some understanding of the problem solving process, but does not consistently employ it. Tends to use one approach to decision-making
in most situations.
Usually makes decisions carefully and using an appropri- 62 ate and ethical problem solving process. Uses different decision making styles depending on context and prob- lem type. Delegates appropriately.
Consistently solves problems expediently. Puts in place 24 the systems and resources that enable timely, accurate decisions. Delegates decisions to those who have the ex- pertise and interest.
Anticipates problems and turns them into opportunities. 13 Can be depended upon to make decisions that create opportunities and that meet objectives of the university’s strategic plan.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 33
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 9 begin on the following page.
AREA 9. PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION-MAKING 71 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 9 (verbatim)
9.1 Doesn’t delegate. Runs central admin. Why is he interviewing those seeking tenure? Why is he deciding on Dept. chairs? Why is he dealing with little issues he does not know enough about to make an informed decision?
9.2 Unable or unwilling to include others in problem solving & decision-making. In the past, his attempts at including others in decision-making was just a sham. He did what he had already decided to do with no regard for the opinions of others.
9.3 The problem of loosing contact with faculty and students remains outstanding and Jacobs shows how he is not willing to resolve that. His decision making skills are terrible: he took over all the power and excluded colleges and departments from making any meaningful decisions.
9.4 One size fits all model. Fails to recognize the diversity of needs and approaches across different university disciplines and colleges. Dictates solutions without heeding advice of others.
9.5 I am torn between unsuccessful and needs improvement. I feel that he is chasing every shiny object that may brighten his CV and reputation of the university. However, I do not believe that he has a coherent plan to run the university over a sustained period of time (let’s say 4 years). We have undergone mission creep, change, organization, and reorganization without relational explanation that are based on data. A faculty member when asked which college she is in, should not have to check her ID card to find out.
9.6 Dr. Jacobs is not always popular due to the fact that he is a change agent. So this reviewer anticipates that he will receive a lot of negative input about his style. However, it takes someone bold and strong in decision making to lead a large State University at this time in this time of social and economic evolution.
9.7 The splitting of the College of Arts and Sciences was arbitrary, capricious, hurried, poorly thought through, and poorly executed, and it has created a large number of unnecessary ad- ministrative and curricular problems that have cost the university money to resolve.
9.8 His administration is highly confrontational and seemingly not focused on finding workable solutions.
9.9 He claims that we are in a financial crisis, yet he rewards administrators with big bonuses and new positions, while we cannot even hire a secretary in out department. How many provosts and vice provosts do we need? Hey, I can consult for Jake for $1200 a day. No, wait, those positions are already filled. Nevermind.
9.10 makes broad sweeping unilateral decisions
9.11 Dr. Jacobs makes decisions too quickly and drives change in a top down approach. He does not gather information from wide sources. Then he digs his heels in to defend decisions.
9.12 I’m not sure how decisions are made at his level. Sometimes it seems as though he has delegated responsibility for decision making to the Provost with little oversight apparent from my level.
9.13 I have yet to see proof of any resolutions for improving the student learning environment on the Main campus. In order to address dwindling funds, he eliminates staff/faculty positions - yet, the top male administrators continue to receive bonuses.
9.14 Many of his decisions seem to be ill advised for the university. I.e. financial decisions that have caught the interest of a local investigative reporter have hurt the institution’s credibility and financial bottom line.
9.15 His strategic planning has proved a record of internal contradictions. Persistent two steps back for every step forward. A disaster.
9.16 Many campus initiatives seem to be based on personal insight and not very well informed by research, consideration of other options, or of other institutions experiences. Ability to effectively consult with various constituencies, especially faculty, staff and students, seems to be lacking.
9.17 An divisive leader. Does not accept input or incorporate feedback effectively. Total lack of ability to build team work across constituencies.
9.18 Lurches from one disaster to the next.
9.19 May have rated too highly for scale- not sure he is aware of other similar institutions but seems to have odd “vision” that does not seem realistic nor attainable ( limited decision-making effectiveness and problem anticipation)
9.20 What has been solved by him in the last six years; what decision has stayed. The three year degree worked during WWII at graduate level maybe but recently it has failed consistently at undergraduate level. Where is ICE now, melted into the sea of give it a new name and a clown to head it organizations of dubious content.
9.21 Surrounds himself with non-critical administrators, though they must be telling him something negative in private - apparently without success.
9.22 ultimate micro-manager
9.23 Recent decisions by the upper administration, either spearheaded or strongly supported by Pres. Jacobs, do not show an objective approach to problem solving that considers all sides and arguments before proposing a solution. Rather, it seems that short term number games (with sometimes questionable numbers) that make him look better are more important than well informed, rational decisions that minimize negative impacts.
9.24 He has no idea how to run a comprehensive university. His decisions often lose money and destroy morale. Rationales and decisions are often at odds with each other.
9.25 If his decision making has been so effective, why has student enrollment dropped and why are we projecting a $$6 million dollar deficit for next year?
9.26 I think the university’s problems have gotten worse under Dr. Jacobs than they were before his tenure. The distrust and disrespect that the BOT and administration have for the staff and faculty are obvious.
9.27 Combining and dismantaling colleges is a prime example of his typical style: come up with an idea, ignore input that it isn’t good, try it, and then have to back down. Does not engender confidence. Hires ill prepared provost who is from the same mold and then gives him a raise after four months. Unbelievable!
9.28 The president is trying to micromanage rather than provide leadership that is inclusive and inspiring.
9.29 Decisions like breaking up the College of A&S were made and there wasa comment period but absolutely no possibility of changing the decision or even getting a more than superficial explanation of why the break up was in the interest of anyone. We suspect Jacobs broke up the College to disarm one of his most vocal critics.
9.30 Too many high paying people in the pot - hires consultants that are getting a big pay check and screwing things up for UT.
9.31 Operates in a hierarchical fashion. Higher education needs a more lateral approach.
9.32 Appears to shoot from the hip with no shared faculty governance as required by the hlc. Example is the costly reorganization of the colleges that ignored faculty senate input and proved very unsuccessful and wasteful of taxpayer money.
9.33 Fiat. That is is problem solving strategy. And then damage control.
9.34 Decision-making approach that appears to be in use is that the administrator makes all deci- sions, with no semblance or hint of shared governance with employees affected by the decision.
9.35 He makes decisions readily enough but never looks past the immediate impact. There are secondary effects and then along come the unanticipated side effects. A little more consideration for the functioning and the real goals of a university are desperately needed.
9.36 Creares more problems than he solves. Hires unqualified submrdants
9.37 Fire, ready, aim is all he knows. He does not allow for any deep discussions or descent even within his inner circle. He is Hitler in the Berlin bunker.
9.38 Came to senate and actually said he makes decisions without worrying about the consequences and then deals with them as they come up. This is NOT leadership, problem solving or decision making. Does not involve faculty leaders in the decision making process, nor does it appear he includes the Deans in this prcocess.
9.39 Honestly, since I have been here, the amount of bureaucratic work has only increased expo- nentially. This instead of solving problems wastes time, demoralize people, cripple creativity (especially because the bureaucratic paper work is associated to a control freak mentality of the upper administration).
9.40 Needs to seek wider array of ideas when broad change is considered
9.41 His decision-making effectiveness is because I said so. He has all authority and the board of trustee just keeps giving him more. He intimidates others then he uses his age as an old man to show that he is not doing so. Wolf in sheeps clother.
9.42 It’s his way or no way. The institutional memory locked up in the faculty is never brought into play.
9.43 Unwilling to compromise, he simply leaves the room when people who disagree with him try to speak.
9.44 The President hires individuals who have relatively little experience in higher education to fill Interim Dean positions. This ends up setting back colleges and hurting morale.
9.45 Dr. Jacobs method of problem solving is to ignore the tremendous expertise that exists through- out the university and unilaterallyt make decisions. When the decsions back-fire, he rationalizes or blames other factors. As an example, for the past several years we have heard that the enroll- ment declines that the university was experiencing were “strategic” and planned for. Now...we have an enrollment crisis, and the solution is to hire an external consultant to find the magic solution. There is no magic!
9.46 He punishes those who act in opposition to what he wants.
9.47 Decision-making tends toward the short-term outcomes and not toward building programat- ically for the future. Salient/vivid problems are handled not long-term strengthening of the programs.
9.48 Beverly handled the merger of the two colleges in an excellent way. She also handled the division of our college into three colleges in a very positive way. It is unfair that she was ever put into that situation.
9.49 Dr. Gold has good problem solving skills and definitely makes efective decisions. No concerns
9.50 Has not effectively addressed budget problems. Acts unilaterally.
9.51 Frequent knee jerk reactions that lead to negative unintended consequences. Also insufficient delegation to those under him, especially associate deans and department chairs to resolve problems.
9.52 he has ignored the faculty senate. He created the University Council populated by more than 50
9.53 Or settles for the solution he thought up, without much (apparent) research into whether anyone else has ever faced the same problem
9.54 Please see #2 above.
9.55 Subverts intellectual dialog and is unwilling to compromise
9.56 Although I like being part of a smaller college (NSM), I do not think that splitting one college into 3 units was a smart fiscal move. I believe that we have too many higher-level administrators.
9.57 Spent a lot of time and money on STEMM. This has not produced the results or money that was expected.
9.58 often seems that the decision has been made before exploring any possibilities
9.59 Unless he wants to solve UT problems by himself and with several administrators, too much organizations efforts with too little implementable plans.
9.60 His style is not my preferred style (a bit paternalistic) but I know that this style speaks to many other community decision makers.
9.61 Does not listen to constituents regarding problems that exist and potential solutions. He is focused on his own agenda and does not hear the needs of the faculty.
9.62 Decision making is unethical. For examples giving bonuses to administrators during such hard economic times. It is not a profit making business. Profit sharing or bonuses is given in industry when they make profits and every body gets a share including workers.
9.63 See above. The president should act as the CEO of the organization, but Lencioni and Collins both recommend that engaging with the workforce is integral to success (and sustaining it). Collins demonstrated that personal humility in the CEO is a component of a great organization. That is missing in our president. The mistrust and lack of respect that both the president, and the faculty have for each other, makes coming together on common issues nearly impossible. Confidence-building steps from the president’s office toward a more collegial and broad-based process of decision making would be a great first step toward repairing that mistrust and disrespect. However, that requires humility. The deans have been largely shut out of any major decision making at UT. That is a tragedy. The deans represent an amazing resource of experience and knowledge of the customer interface. It is unfortunate that Dr. Jacobs seems to lack trust in the deans, and thus largely excludes them from participation in the administration of the organization.
9.64 We have mostly learnt about the terrible incident that happened at the University of Toledo Hospital: a donated kidney was thrown into the garbage can and was damaged beyond repair. So far, we have not seen any acceptable explanation on the cause, nor have we seen any punitive actions to prevent another similar embarrassing incident.
9.65 Good - getting infrastructure improvements moving (Field House, classroom buildings, cam- pus). Good - keeping Lady Rockets on campus for WNIT. Bad - paying former member of BOT as ’consultant’ with no review of contract, no report on accomplishments, this smells of crony capitalism and dictatorship.
9.66 His decision making practices come from a non-academic perspective. Hence, his decisions are often inappropriate for an institution of higher learning. With the exception of Provost Gold, he has surrounded himself with individuals who have little or no background working in an academic environment, so I do not believe he even gets good advice from an academic prespective.
9.67 Dr. Jacobs is unable to delegate or when he does he delegates to people based on this personal relationships with them and not their competence. This means that nothing gets done in a timely manner and even less gets done correctly. When errors in decision-making are brought to his attention he doubles-down even when the errors are egregious or the decisions are obviously unethical, placing the university at risk. Pride and personal loyalty to his team of yes-people seem to be much more important to Dr. Jacobs than competence of the long-term well- being of the University. Providing a QUALITY education to our students and not destroying our ???brand??? does not seem to figure in to decision-making at all???thus our declining enrollment and increasing student dissatisfaction.
9.68 The past 5 years have certainly been financially challenging, and yet UT has not suffered the budgetary consequences of other large universities with which I am familiar.
9.69 Deciding too slowly is as dangerous as deciding too quickly. Having said that, he does tend to the side of “too quickly”.
9.70 Unfortunately, again, although a very intelligent person he tends to demonstrate a knee-jerk reaction to problems or a “ready, shoot, aim” approach that costs the university greatly in many ways.
9.71 Pres Jacobs does exhibit traits of a strong leader in that he is not afraid to make difficult deci- sion. However, he often makes such decisions without objective data, or worse still, against all rational data that have been presented regarding a given issue. Instead of delegating authority where it belongs, he chooses to micromanage to the point of either creating undue burden and beaurocracy on a system or strangling it to the point it is completely dysfunctional.
9.72 The one approcah is “my way or the highway”.
9.73 He is very shrewd and thoughtful. We do need to get rid of those faculty who are not here to fulfill the mission of the University and I think Dr. Gold understands this.
9.74 Does as well as can be expected in under financially constrained circumstances. Does an outstanding job gathering information and listening carefully before arriving at a conclusion regarding the nature of a problem and designing solutions. Solutions are well thought out and designed. An excellent example is the problem with the kidney transplant episode. His actions in this unfortunate incident are exemplary.
9.75 Married to individuals who are not competent and continue to serve him poorly
9.76 Again, uses a top-down approach to decision-making with little input (or maybe intake) from others.
9.77 always looks at what is good for the university
9.78 The decision making is completely central. The faculty and any one else except the decision making group of few people has almost no input. The feedback is given in “Town hall meetings”
where people opinions are mingled into a “mass efect” and could be easily ignored after that. The organization has all the characteristics of an organizztion ran form the top with a pyramid structure.
9.79 Excellent problem solving skills, unfortunately I think many problems are hidden from him.
9.80 He may not settle “for first solution” but definitely utilizes his own (one) approach to decision- making.
9.81 The President does not seem to lack the confidence in his decision making abilities. The work-load solution seems to have been a one-sized fits all approach.
9.82 He reacts rather than builds.
9.83 Picks “winners” at random e.g. solar energy. Decisions are made poorly and without rationale; e.g. we know that UT has a lot of local competition Owens, Lourdes etc. but there is no particular reason for students to come to UT. UT must make use of its graduate programs and integrate them with the undergrad program.
9.84 Should delegate more and listen to the opinion of others rather than a hand-selected few
9.85 Dr. Jacobs presents as data-driven when making decisions, but at times he is so eager to make changes, he does not allow sufficient time for even adequate data collection. Decision such as college mergers and budget cuts need to be made based on the data. If they were, data were not shared with faculty and staff.
9.86 Problem solving generally does not involve the voices of those effected by the proposed “so- lutions”. Efforts at engaging all parties, like strategic planning, are crippled by the perpetual “re-envisioning/reorganizing” of the organizational structure. I’ve been here less than 5 years. I have been a part of 2 colleges, both of which have disappeared and no one can tell me what college I am in now.
9.87 This is consistent with all of the above comments.
9.88 hard to evaluate when one is “in the trenches” and there isn’t much perceived communica- tion other than to hear when we are not doing something the way the administration thinks we should do it - may not be specifically Dr. Jacobs issue but rather other administrators. Morale on HSC is dipping with many changes and challenges (There wasn’t even a “Happy Doctor’s Day” email acknowledgement.) We understand there are financial challenges, but little acknowledgements and some positive reinforcement go a long way.
9.89 Not only is he unable to find solutions to basic problems, but he acts as though they don’t exist and makes “proclamations” regarding how he wants things to be rather than dealing with things as they actually are.
9.90 My concern with problem-solving is the perceived lack of two-way communication with internal stakeholders, such as faculty. Sometimes it seems like Dr. Jacobs is circling the wagons, surrounding himself with folks who agree with him (this may not be accurate, but it looks like it from the outside).
9.91 Autocratic leadership with centralized decision making. Phoney budgets and numbers to skew just how poorly the University is being managed. $36 M deficit but he takes no personal responsiblity for it and turns to workers and faculty to harness the burden through work- load manipulations. Meanwhile all the top administrators continue to make their overinflated compensation packages, while the rest of us go without a modest raises for multiple years.
9.92 did not delegate much decision-making authority to or take much input from faculty when choosing provost (to put it mildly). Only gave it lip service.
9.93 9.94
9.95 9.96
9.97 9.98 9.99
9.100 9.101
9.105 9.106
9.108 9.109
Offers basic solutions to basic problems but does not follow through and faculty are left feeling let down
Decisions too often seem to be made willy-nilly, without adequate the consideration of all aspects that can only come from more effective listening and engaging the rich intellectual resources available on the campus (see above). So it is not surprising that the staff and faculty often are not supportive of decisions that they don’t have real input into.
Makes top down decisions and does not seem to investigate and listen to faculty.
When he is quoted by a dean”i dont give a shit about what faculty” that defines his attitude of do things my way decision making
Actually rejects solutions when they were agreed to earlier.
Violates university rules in order to get the outcome he wishes.
When he decreed that any given class would be cancelled unless it had a specific minimum number of students enrolled, he didn’t anticipate that this would cause some students not to be able to complete their major. He seems not to understand how a university functions, nor to anticipate the problems inherent in his “solutions.” If he would simply confer with faculty before making his decrees, he could learn a lot.
Makes decisions without input from all facets of stakeholders
Faculty’s role over curriculum is unimportant to him. BOT and president make top down decisions and the hell with the rest of us.
The fact that I am aware of issues that have come up for UT and the subsequent plan of action to improve/remedy these issues speaks volumes. There is great communication from Dr. Gold to all of us; there is transparency in our issues at hand; and candid discussions about changes that should be made, or are anticipated. This all matters to me, and makes me feel comfortable with his current leadership and guidance.
I have mentioned this already. It appears to many that his modus operandi is fire, aim, ready, thus making costly errors that could have been avoided by consulting stake-holders. One example, the disastrous reorganization of the colleges.
Seems to take limited amounts of input in order to form a quick decision to complex problems before looking at all the possible negative side effects that could arise.
Micromanages and then doesn’t use information for bigger decisions. Consequences of decisions are often not anticipated.
Dr. Jacobs is a decision maker, and he sticks by these decisions, even when they are wrong. That is not a criticism, per se. He fails to consult the proper campus constituencies and involve them in the process.
Perception is that some decisions are rushed. This may be the defense against “academic stagnation” but it comes at a cost.
This is a huge problem. He is trying to micro-manage a $790M/year budget complex organiza- tion. Hence ever since he has taken over many problems go to the President’s desk and action gets delayed. These are problems that can easily be dealt with at a lower level. This style is accompanied by immense amount of secrecy. Decision making is highly secretive and is done by a coterie of core personnel surrounding him. Delegation seems unknown to him.
9.110 9.111
9.112 9.113
9.115 9.116
9.119 9.120
9.121 9.122 9.123
Seems to think that all decisions need to be made by him personally. This has created lots of bottlenecks. Many deadlines are being missed - in workloads, hiring, etc.
Problems that have arisen are not dealt with transparently. Often, it seems they are ignored as not really problems. Decision are made at upper levels only. Decisions seem short-sighted.
Top-down bullying is his style.
Dr. Jacobs tends to go with what is “new and different” rather than thinking about what is actually workable. This, “sin in haste and let the devil take the hindmost” approach is usually less than an ideal way to make key decisions.
Too many decision come from on-high. Formation of University Senate and change of bylaws to give final power to President’s office are completely contrary to team management and our student-centered mission. Faculty are consistently perceived as obstructionist even thought they speak for the best interests of their students. The budget and resulting deficit is still not transparent, explained and/or public.
This goes to the faculty teaching load; if there is to be a change, it should be specific, fair, and equal for all faculty.
Does not demonstrate the ability to problem solve or critically think. He dictates and demands things to be done his way. When that doesn’t work, then he changes direction and demands something else.
The president relies on a small group of like-minded people in making decisions. Because this group is beholden to him, they are unwilling to questions decisions. The inner circle is not diverse, so the concerns of groups such as women are not heard. There is always an urgency to make decisions quickly, which results in poor decisions and a lack of input from constituencies that are impacted by these decisions.
I don’t understand how resolving this fiscal problem has been postponed until now. Why wasn’t a plan implemented two years ago? Problem anticipation failed in this case.
Is very reactive to situations. Not proactive. Does not anticipate situations
Inefficient and seemingly indecisive- suprising for a surgeon. Needs to delegate to his “residents” more and give up the micromanagment.
Dr. Jacobs appears to be very decisive. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have the best interest of the academic side of the university in mind. Most decisions may improve the situation for the medical side of campus, but are not student- nor faculty-centered.
Problems are often “solved” by the quickest fix, not by a sustainable reproducible long-term solution. It feels as though there is a greater concern to “check the box” than to formulate a strategic plan.
Decisions coming from the UT leadership seem capricious at times, and often occur without im- portant input from key constituents. A recent example is strategic direction to have the honors college serve as a portal for all non-remedial students. This is impractical, and would actually diminish the impact of the honors college on attracting and providing unique opportunities for the best students.
I believe Dr. Jacobs has every best intention for this University. I believe he is frustrated with the constant negative public tongue lashings on the part of a small vocal Main Campus faculty leadership and AAUP leadership. I want Dr. Jacobs to know that I too am frustrated. I wonder if there is a way for you to dialogue with other faculty (HSC and MC) that would rather work with UT admin instead of fight with UT admin. I think you would be surprised and pleased.
Area 10 Diversity and Inclusion
The extent to which the President promotes a diverse and inclusive culture throughout the university. Engages in strategies that encourage diversity of thought and participation.
President Jacobs’s score in this area
See the title page of this report for the key/meaning to the above score
Needs Improvement:
Meets Expectations: Exceeds Expectations:
Role Model:
No Response:
: 2.58
Faculty Respondents
May not recognize own biases and assumptions about 80 others. Does not have a clear grasp of the appropri- ateness of communication with others who are different from self. Needs more understanding of benefits accruing
from having a diverse university.
Knows the laws related to workplace discrimination. 73 Does not always consider diverse opinions or the impact of decisions on diverse others. Complies with university requirements on diversity, but makes little effort to enact
the spirit of diversity.
Makes an effort to support training of faculty, staff, and 119 students on the importance and practice of diversity. Models inclusive communication and diversity of think- ing for others.
Is able to objectively challenge assumptions about oth- 44 ers based on their differences. Encourages commit- tees, groups, colleges, and departments to seek out di- verse opinions. Actively participates in campus diversity awareness.
Has clear strategic understanding of the benefits of diver- 23 sity and inclusion in decision making. Creates solid rela- tionships with people who think and act differently from self. Includes diversity and inclusion goals in planning.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 43
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 10 begin on the following page.
AREA 10. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION 80 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 10 (verbatim)
10.1 10.2 10.3
10.4 10.5 10.6
10.7 10.8 10.9
10.11 10.12
10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16
10.17 10.18 10.19
Administration includes only professional bureaucrats, no faculty rotation, no faculty input.
Diversity is not in appearance but in action and shared leadership.
I have no idea. But, the faces of REAL POWER at this university from the Board, the President/Provost Offices, Deans, and Department chairs, look awfully white and male and privileged to me. I think the legal rhetoric is there to prevent a discrimination case, but I don’t think the reality of respecting diversity in present in this administration. If they don’t respect senior professor who are white and male...why bother respecting the disenfranchised women, minority, and LBGT faculty.
As a senior faculty member, I experience significant support for the concept of diversity and inclusion. This is manifested through HR policies, and a number of diversity initiatives.
I believe that Dr. Jacobs’ heart is in the right place when it comes to diversity. He is sensitive to underrepresented groups and makes efforts to be inclusive. I see this as one of his strengths.
The 3 highest administrators are all white males. Hiring females or diverse individuals for lower administrative positions is not promoting a diverse culture.
Only choose people who support him, mostly from his old buddies. There is little open communication or problem solving at UT.
The student body has become more multicultural under the Jacobs Administration, but the motivations behind this accomplishment seem purely pecuniary.
The president has been especially vocal about support for diversity related to LGBT issues and is to be congratulated for doing so. More success at diversifying upper-administrative positions should be a priority.
This is a hostile workplace. Jacobs is ultimately responsible for that.
Seems to have a single vision and expects all others to join in his vision- even if seem like poor vision- this leadership style is out-of-sorts with this academic environment
Top management all men, middle management mostly women He is tone deaf to many issues,including those of working women. evidence: senior leadership lacks diversity
He’s pretty good on inclusion in terms of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation. He is not receptive to diversity in thoughts and strategies for enhancing the university that differ from his own views, however. And why is it that UT keeps hiring athletic directors and coaches who end up treating women inappropriately in one way or another?
I’m sure he thinks he’s promoted diversity - however, his inner circle consists of men and most he brought with him from MUO.
I think the first statement “may not recognize own biases and assumptions about others” is true. It needs to extend beyond diversity.
If he does not follow the office of affirmative action rules, how could I know the answer to this category of questioning.
10.21 10.22
10.23 10.24
10.25 10.26
10.28 10.29 10.30
10.32 10.33
10.34 10.35 10.36
10.38 10.39 10.40
Until there is someone other than an old white guy as the leader of the diversity office, UT is doomed to fail in terms of diversity. In addition, look at the cheer-leading and dance teams. You will be hard pressed to find any diversity there!
Vice presidents are an old boys network.
It’s not a fiefdom. Needs to have a diversity of opinions in his inner circle, not just a cabal of flunkies.
His policies go strongly against faculty efforts to retain students from marginalized popula- tions. He does not appear to support retention of students of color.
Very limited notion of diversity seems to be in play. Inclusivity seems to extend largely to those already in agreement with the President.
The goal has been diversity for its own sake with little apparent attention to job qualifications.
Adms and some faculty have been hired without advertising. Buddies are hired with a wink from the affirmative action office.
I appreciated his honest and to a certain extent successful activities to improve diversity and inclusion.
Tends to value opinions of a few, but not most faclty and staff Many programs on diversity
When will more LGBT faculty members be hired? UT is seriously lacking in this particular arena.
He fosters a strong bias against liberal arts disciplines, and a pro-right political agenda. He seems to follow lockstep behind the governor’s ideas, instead of supporting the institutional members he directs.
The President has virtually no racial/ethnic diversity among his vice presidents.
Dr. Jacob’s failure in the area of diversitry is in recognizes the improtance of encouraging and considering opinions, thoughts, and ideas that are different than his!
No minorities are present in upper administration. Very few women are in high positions.
Women in upper administration tend to stop at the Dean level.
Dr. Jacobs made a committment to diversity and inclusion from the moment he stepped foot on the HSC and continued when he went over to the MC. Dr. Jacobs has put policies and procedures in place as well as enornous support for diversity initiatives and inclusion. Personally, I believe this is one of Dr. Jacobs’ strongest qualities because this is a topic that I live and breathe daily.
Contributes to a hostile environment. Shows no recognition of own biases and assumptions, and clearly communicates high disregard for others experiences and expertise. Has undermined established programs that were making progress toward diversity and inclusion.
Uses this one as need be.
The senior management of the university is made up of white males. What diversity?
Despite the goal of inclusion, and diversity, the president’s own cabinet does not reflect di- versity. Because of this, there is very little in the way of diversity initiatives on campus-even with the Diversity Task force-no progress is being made or shown.
10.41 10.42
10.44 10.45 10.46
10.47 10.48
10.49 10.50
10.51 10.52
10.54 10.55
10.57 10.58 10.59
This is a cause that is mentioned and supported but has been essentially unsuccessful.
Too many men at higher levels, I often see photos of President Jacobs with almost all men. The university administration appears less diverse than it was.
Ask the folks who participated in the A and S Roundtable or the faculty who wee asked to redesign the university. Nothing came of either effort and these are but two of many examples.
O.K. in substance with all the people he works with.
We all need to continue to work on this one.
Diversity is a significant focus of the dean but definition appears to be only limited to race and country of origin. Diversity of color of skin and country of origin often appear to take precedence over quality and performance. There is a perception that minority students will receive treatment or privilages that may not be afforded to non-minority students.
He only considers the opinions of his inner circle.
UT operates within the laws of Ohio. However, the championing of diverse ideas is lost at UT. Decisions are made at the top, by the few at the top, and everyone else is left to follow directions. Covey wrote of synergy, and the amazing ideas that can come from diverse thought and divergent viewpoints. That is typically the lifeblood of the higher learning environment. It is lost at UT.
He will use “diversity” when it is to his advantage. Crystal Dixon brought substantial “diver- sity”. Yet, she was fired for writing a personal op-ed.
Has failed to address or engage large Hispanic population of NW Ohio. They still find BGSU friendlier. Whatever happened to Latin American Studies at UT?
With a few exceptions, it seems most of his “diversity” is window dressing.
We have a lot of positive diversity efforts and training. However, he does not seem to have solid relationships with people who think and act differently from himself.
Pres Jacobs and his office have been supportive, in time and financially, of diversity. I applaud him for continuing to lead this charge, along with other administrative divisions, faculty and staff, and students.
Culturally inclusive, but doesn’t include faculty outside of his inner circle.
President Jacobs commitment to campus diversity and the LGBT community is much appre- ciated.
I have not seen much effort made to promote diversity. This applies to hiring and promoting faculty as well as recruiting a diverse set of administrators.
Puts appropriate diversity policies into place and backs them up
Not reflected in the leadership or board.
I think the Provost adequately promotes racial and ethnic diversity, but at the same time, he does not include appropriate stakeholders in decision-making. Again, his management style is top-down.
Supports concept of diversity to a fault-even to the extent of hiring people based on race as opposed to qualification-despite search committees recommendation
10.61 10.62
10.64 10.65 10.66
10.68 10.69
10.70 10.71 10.72 10.73 10.74 10.75
10.77 10.78 10.79
10.80 10.81
Gives voice to the value of diversity but seems insincere in terms of follow through with necessary resources to truly promote this.
Under the President’s administration, the University has made significant strides in recruiting and retaining persons of minority status as well as recognizing and standing up for same-sex marriage.
If diversity is important quality is moRE important. No hope here: UT will be constrained to make sop appointments to please minority groups. One suspects that once again there are expensive administrators who actually achieve very little. However, cannot blame Jacobs it will be the same with any UT President.
This is probably his only salvation!
Dr. Jacobs speaks the language of diversity and inclusion, but when I look at senior leadership, I see a lot of white men, many of whom have been at the University (or MCO) for a long time.
I think Dr. Jacobs’s heart is in the right place regarding diversity and inclusion, but too often those good intentions do not translate into actual improvements at the university. Look at retention and graduation of minority (especially African-American) students, look at recruit- ment and retention of minority (especially African-American) faculty. We can do so much better, and clearer and more consistent direction from Dr. Jacobs is necessary to move us in that direction.
He doesnt even pay lip service to this
The community surrounding UT is angry and rejecting of many of our graduates due to leadership attitude, dishonesty and arrogance.
Does not tolerate diversity of opinion.
I think people are afraid to speak out against him.
College remains mostly white and definitely has no African American faculty
Not something that is all that important when the ship is sinking.
This is a definite strength
I really cannot judge Dr. Jacobs on this issue because of a lack of first hand observation, but I do think he makes an effort to promote diversity.
Wants to heavily recruit sycophants. If they happen to be minorities then he uses them to get immunity to criticism for his own bad leadership, under the ruse of increasing diversity.
Encourages diversity training and events on campus.
He doesn’t understand either term.
Killing shared governance by forcing faculty to either vote for silly supremacy and delegation clauses or risk loss of shared governance structures are direct evidence of Dr. Jacob’s failure to value participation from diverse constituencies and include faculty in decisions.
Public statements support diverse population, but personal interactions do not support these statements.
Superficial and minimal effort.
10.83 10.84 10.85
The senior leadership lack any diversity. Therefore, the concerns of large segments of the university are ignored. Especially hurt are women. We have lost several very competent women leaders because of the president. He is insensitive to the concerns of women on campus.
The university does a great deal to support these important considerations - I am unable to say how much of this is due to the president himself.
Although this is definitely a strength, Johnnie is not very inclusive in decision making pro- cesses.
I truly believe Dr. Jacobs cares about people.
Area 11 External Relations
Unsuccessful: Does not engage in external relations or is highly ineffec- 68 tive in forging constructive relationships with important external stakeholders (donors, officials, prospective stu- dents, etc.). Vital university relationships are stressed
and unproductive.
Needs Improvement: Understands the importance of external relationships, 72 but spends little time or effort on developing these rela-
tionships. Relationships are weak and unproductive.
Meets Expectations: Makes a concerted effort to engage important external 102 stakeholders and form constructive relationships with prospective students, donors, government officials, media representatives and other important community leaders. Relationships are constructive and moderately produc-
tive. Conflicts with external parties are few.
Exceeds Expectations: Balances schedule to spend appropriate amounts of time 41 on the development of critically important external re- lationships (prospective students, donors, government officials and media representatives). Relationships are productive and conflicts are few and relatively minor in
Role Model:
No Response:
Relates effectively with external stakeholders to advance 19 the mission of the university. Effectively recruits stu- dents, cultivates donors and solicits gifts for the uni- versity. Forges very productive relationships with other important stakeholders such as government officials and
media representatives. Handles difficult personalities with ease and grace.
Unable to respond due to insufficient information. 80
Written comments on President Jacobs’s performance in Area 11 begin on the following page.
Faculty Respondents
AREA 11. EXTERNAL RELATIONS 86 Written Comments on President Jacobs’s Performance in Area 11 (verbatim)
11.3 11.4
11.6 11.7
11.9 11.10
11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17
11.18 11.19
He spends entirely too much of the university’s resources on external matters, to the point that it harms UT. But he does not do this to advance the mission of the University. He puts his goals ahead of those for the betterment of students and their lives.
He scared away important donors and has made people around laughing at UT bot in Toledo and an many professional communities
Does a good job of convincing BOT and Governor that he is doing a good job.
Other than attending sports events and a few junkets at UT/Foundation expense, I am un- aware of what the Dr Jacobs does for external relations besides issue press releases. I do know that he appears willing to issue statements to promote whatever policies that the governor wishes.
Fundraising efforts are based only on pet projects–there does not seem to be much of an effort to pursue fundraising for educational initiatives.
I shut my eyes to this place when I am not here. He is an embarrassment.
Places high priority on relations with the board. Places low priority on relations with the faculty and students
I think that Dr. Jacobs has been successful in raising the profile of UT within the community. I think he stumbled in his open support for SB5, however. I’m not a union person, but I think he could have handled that issue differently.
President Jacobs has spread the wingspan of the UT, but the animal that grows is widely perceived as a scavenger (e.g., think vulture or a shark).
The President is the public face of the institution to external audiences. President Jacobs seems to relish dealing with internal structures than with external relations. It is not evident that he is a very active contributor to fundraising efforts.
Extremely poor fund raising record and ineffective government relationships. Some effective outreach is done - when it assists his self-promotion. Unsure but from financial initiative shortcoming this seems lacking Promedica
Does not represent us well in the community - both in terms of style and substance.
ineffective at fund-raising
Should spend more time fundraising and less micromanaging and meddling in college level affairs. He was the only University president in Ohio to give testimony to the subcommittee in support of SB5, telling the public that UT would save about $8,000,000 if there were no unions on campus. He was unable to substantiate the $8 million number when questioned about it BTW.
Where’s the fund raising? Isn’t the job of the President to bring in donations? Show me the money!
Externalrelationsdoesnotmeanpanderingtoaparticularpointofview,shapedbyaconserva- tive, business-oriented, political landscape. The point man for a university has a responsibility to inform the public of a university’s role, not alter that role for personal gain and to curry favor from segments of the community.
11.21 11.22
11.23 11.24
11.25 11.26
11.27 11.28 11.29
11.30 11.31 11.32
11.33 11.34 11.35
11.36 11.37
11.38 11.39
Thepresidentsofmostuniversitiesplayaprominentroleinraisingmoneyfortheirinstitution’s endowment and endeavors. This president displays an inward looking attitude and prefers to micromanage rather than represent the University to the outside world. He is a very ineffective ambassador for the University.
He has duped the public.
Meets with people, places VERY expensive adds in the Blade, BUT the talk of the town is that it is all SMOKE!!
The board of trustees never questions him, so it appears he meet the expectations.
I have heard many students, faculty, and alumni who wish to dissociate themselves from UT because of the reputation of he university post merger. You only need to look at the quality faculty who retired early, got jobs elsewhere, to avoid damage to their reputations or just out of disgust.
The reputation of the university has diminished particularly in the last 1-2 years. Recent revelations reveal an element of cronyism.
Jacobs sits with the local establishment on numerous boards and invites them to his stadium box. Some of them are catching on probably because of the Blade stories that have finally started to appear.
He does try, but at the same time due to his lack of communication with students he tends to alienate our graduates and they don’t support the college financially.
He appears to be overly engaged with meeting the needs of external stakeholders, to the detriment of established standards within academia.
The President has good relations with the Board, but has ignored potential relations with community colleges and the transfer students they might bring. His vision of us becoming the Johns Hopkins of the Midwest was misguided, and has exacerbated our enrollment challenges.
The level of stress has never been higher at the University. Morale is at an all-time low. Most frequent comment from the outside: “What IS UT DOING????”
He is overexended in this area without an adequate system of delegation of authority to his direct reports. A senior associate dean is especially lacking.
has the blade in his pants Thinks he’s better than he is.
The foundation has not improved significantly since his tenure began. We need someone who has the respect of the business and finance world to increase our endowments.
Has tried kissing up to both Republican and Democratic governors. Solar energy and support for issue two.
The president needs to travel around to Ohio schools and talk to people more about the university to enhance recruitment of new students.
Great growth in this area.
He seems to be focusing on internal affairs more than external matters. It is important for him to do what he, as UT president,is uniquely qualified to do. He seems to spend much time for the things that others can do well instead.
11.40 11.41 11.42
11.43 11.44 11.45
11.48 11.49
11.51 11.52
Great here
May be he is good in that since BOT believes in him and support him.
Apparently our BOT is convinced Dr. Jacobs is doing an acceptable job in his position. This is an external relations coup. However, the customers (students) recognize the poor operations of the organization, and the mistrust the faculty have in the leadership. This is not good. It does not make for happy customers, and happy alumni.
Good relations with Governor Kasich. He is a luaghing stock in the business and intellectual communities
Has bought his way into The Blade, eliminating one source of public irritation regarding UT. Good strategic thinker regarding PR, but builds his reputation on house of cards.
President Jacobs’ strongest asset is his ability to relate with the community at large. He seems to have a in with the movers and shakers of NW Ohio as well as a good relationship the current state government administration. I am not sure just exactly how that has benefited the University, but it certainly does seem to be the case. I guess the most positive thing is that the University seems to have a very positive relationship with the Blade, which has often not been the case in the past.
Fundraising is an institutional weakness. Mitigating: tough environment, especially in this region.
At least there is no apparent evidence of his engagement.
He has antagonized many in the business community but done a better job with some other constituencies.
Pres Jacobs has done a very good job of trying to position UT favorably in today’s changing academic and business markets. He continues to emphasize engagement as one of our most important opportunities and strengths.
While I disagree with parts of his vision, he is effective at engaging external stakeholders.
There have been several important community events involving University of Toledo re- searchers which Dr. Jacobs did not attend. These events were sponsored by organizations that provide research money to the faculty.
Is effectively making connections with community through sports and other events. Would like to see these actions extend more to academic endeavors. Find ways to engage public in the cutting edge research at the University. When an NIH grant is awarded to a University professor, this should be treated as an automatic reason for a press release with hope that at least some northwest Ohio newspapers or radios will pick it up. If not, there should be periodic ads in newspaper highlighting these achievements. These are exceptional achievements that will only happen at the University of Toledo in NW Ohio. Why keep them secret?
I have not sen the Provost developing relationships with outside entities. For instance, he should be talking with the big corporations in town about their perceptions of the health care problems and costs in NW OH and what can be done to address those. He should be developing more corporate donors and sponsorships of programs, scholarships, and research activities. Compared to other academic health centers and universities, UT does a poor job of fundraising and has also alienated many community leaders. That is not entirely the Provost’s fault, but he has much to do with it.
always a loud supporter of UT
11.56 11.57 11.58
11.59 11.60
11.61 11.62
11.64 11.65
11.66 11.67
11.68 11.69
11.71 11.72
Does a good job of appeasing the Republicans in office, but seems to be woefully inadequate at fund-raising and development.
Dr Jacobs needs to engage community, business, state and federal leaders and get them to donate money to the University.
No evidence of any effective performance. I cringe every time I see the bow-tie King (not LJ) mouthing off at our and the students’ considerable expense. Remember who actually generates revenue at UT. It is faculty and students not administrators.
Tothe extent that they might be financially beneficial
Gathersexternalstakeholderswhowillsupporthiswayofthinkingandhisideasanddirections for the University’s future. Siphons money from the main campus to support the Heath Science Campus
He goes on the internet with recorded interviews but he is unconvincing - seems like something he has to do but does not like doing it. His general external appearance seems to be one of a tired individual lacking vison and energy.
He appears to be sincere in his stated concern for the University, but he has only been successful in cultivating positive relationships with external stakeholders, and less successful in dealing with internal line personnel. It would be advisable to consider setting up a problem solving group (similar to quality circles in hospitals) that would involve all stakeholders. That approach would help establish ownership for problems and the advocated solutions to those problems.
If there is not a free meal or a way to gain personal financial income, there is no external relations. Why is UT not ranked in the top 700 schools in US, lloyd jacobs. He served his purpose to merge medical school and UT, now both are failing entities
The community surrounding UT is angry and rejecting of many of our graduates due to leadership attitude, dishonesty and arrogance.
President Jacobs has taken this university down. I’m afraid that even if he is removed now we won’t recover. He is a surgeon, not an educator. He hasn’t the faintest understanding of academic freedom. Please someone do something to make him go away.
Marketing of university is biased towards medical campus.
Too many underprepared students have been mainstreamed into the major programs which have left faculty fighting to keep them eligible.
This is also a strength
The main job of a university president is fund raising and gaining political support. Little evidence of multiple large donations.
Becomes a sycophant for higher up government officials. Shows no advocacy for UT. Actively disparages faculty at UT and shows disrespect for them in media relations by using terms like “live in the middle ages”.
Has strong relationships with BOT and other external entities of import.
Nobody who encounters Jacobs (and doesn’t owe their job to his whims) surely sees through his pomposity and incompetence.
11.74 11.75
11.77 11.78
11.79 11.80
Coming out immediately in favor of SB 5 really hurt UT’s relationship with union workers. More recently, reversing the decision on the abortion clinic issue makes the university look weak and unsure of itself to the public. Both of these instances are evidence that improvement is needed in managing external relations.
Promedica pulled out of joint simulation center. That is a problem and Ut is left with entire bill.
The president has no public presence. He is a poor speaker, and he is not engaged in the community. The president of the University of Toledo should be a leader in the community, donating to community organizations, serving on boards of cultural institutions, etc. Instead, our president does not even live in the city.
The President seems to want to spend more time in the role of the Provost, involved in the daily operations of this institution, rather than the traditional role of a President. For example, how much has the endowment increased during his tenure? How many large donations have been made? From what I have observed, Dean Naganathan has been more successful than the President in this respect. But again, perhaps this is a communication problem?
Appreciate the efforts to help the Promedica and Mercy systems work with the university. A greater effort to actively link with neighboring communities could pay big dividends. (Elim- ination of the physician liason position was not a bridge-building decision.)Has Dr. Gold personally visited the out-lying community hospitals and met with their CEOs? If not, it may be worth considering.
Dr. Jacobs definitely seems to have the BoT and other important stakeholders working with him.
Dr. Jacobs does an ok job in representing the university.
Area 12
Comments on the President’s Overall Performance
In this section of the evaluation, faculty members were invited to make any comments about the president’s performance that they were not able to address in the eleven areas above. The following are the verbatim responses received from that invitation.
12.1 Overall I feel that President Jacobs is an excellent leader of this University. He has outlined new approaches to various problems and has shown the ability to hire good administrators even though they are not necessarily popular with the faculty.
12.2 President Jacobs has created a culture at UT where many faculty have either broken-off into their own professional world or have become angry and defiant. He has and will continue to damage the image of the University as a fair and welcoming place to work or attend. One trait that he does possess is consistency. He has hired other administrators who reflect his authoritarian management style, as well as his race and gender.
12.3 Please replace this man soon with someone who is NOT one of his underlings. We need new leadership at UT to survive.
12.4 He is the worst President of any University with which I have been associated.
12.5 Jacobs must go away. he is a complete stranger in academia and keeps destroying it every day. Morale is down, students are ready to flee in large numbers. Every day he stays in his office is a terrible burden that negatively impact many faculty and students.
12.6 The administrator to faculty ratio at UT main campus is among highest in nation yet we continue to add administrators while we lose faculty. Administrators continue to receive bonuses and raises (regardless of what they are called) while faculty receive none and are not replaced when they leave. This is unsustainable.
12.7 Its hard to evaluate the actual performance of President Jacobs since his administration is so opaque that I am sure sure what is smoke, fire, or kindling. I have spent the last few years feeling under his leadership that I am an actor in a Potemkin Village. However, I am not sure who I am here to fool: the President, myself, my colleagues, the students, the Blade, the Board, the governor, the public, all, some, or none of the above.
12.8 Dr. Jacobs is appreciated for his willingness to sacrifice self and to take unpopular stances in order to strategically position the University of Toledo for the coming decades. This is not an easy task and Dr. Jacobs needs to know that there are many of us (who are not necessarily verbal) who sincerely admire his work and his commitment to Higher Education. It is all a matter of who survives for the future. He genuinely cares for the University and understand what lies ahead. I strongly recommend that he be encouraged to continue his work.
12.9 12.10
12.11 12.12 12.13
12.14 12.15
12.17 12.18
The conflict and low morale allowed by Dr Jacobs administration is hurting UT. It hurts our productivity and smears our reputation to prospective students.
I wish I had confidence that the outcome of this evaluation would make a difference to Dr. Jacobs. I really do not believe he cares what faculty think about him or his administration. I believe he cares only about what the Board of Trustees think and it is very clear that the Board does not care what faculty think. I feel that we are dismissed out of hand, regardless of the issue. I have not been supportive of the tone of some of the union actions/emails, but there are many good people on faculty who give 200% and it is discouraging to continue to be given the impression we do not work hard enough. It would be nice if the “bad apples” could be addressed individually and not paint the whole faculty with the same brush.
His dismissive behavior and disregard for faculty guarantees that I will not remain in Toledo.
We need a president with a PhD degree, not an MD.
Fail. President Jacobs is nearly a complete fail. The BOT has proved a lousy steward of our venerable university for the last seven years. They should remove President Jacobs as soon as possible. Enough is Enough.
His leadership is very detrimental to the mission of UT
She is a nice woman, but having her as dean for education was a disaster to the college of education.
There is a need to remove Jacobs, but the cosy relationship he has with the Board of Trustees means that is unlikely. The place would be better off without him, without the $1200 a day consultants, and without many of his cronies. The bonuses for upper management are sickening, when everyone else is facing cutbacks and student fees are rising.
A far less authoritarian leadership style would better work with the democratic leadership prominent in academia... my experience with these surgeon-trained administrators negatively taints my future interactions with other surgeons who aspire to leadership.
The BOT must wake up to what is happening. They repeated refuse to listen to the rational views of the faculty and staff. Dr. Jacobs was not qualified for this position and should not have been appointed. A value review that was to have happened after 2.5 years would have shown this. The BOT is complicit and guilty of irresponsible behavior. The president must retire for us to move forward and face our many challenges.
I find the current situation appalling. The president has shown repeatedly that he is woefully ignorant of how the various parts of a University function and the roles of the majority of the stakeholders in this complex organization. Because of this, he is incapable of successfully performing his duties, yet he remains in his position.
Honestly, this President is very bad in all areas and it is a crying shame that the Board will exert no control over him. For some reason they take his version of everything as gospel. The Board is not acting in a responsible way and lets the President do whatever he wants without consideration of the logic behind or the possible consequences of his decisions.
Shortly after Dr. Jacobs became the president of UT, he asked the faculty senate to give him the ???benefit of the doubt??? and support needed to do his job. I thought it was a fair request, but over the years I don???t think that Dr. Jacobs has reciprocated. I don???t think he???s been willing to accept input from the faculty. This is a problem. Dr. Jacobs is pursuing a ???business model??? for the university but has been vague about its details. I studied business models that reiterate key points made by Dr. Jacobs, but these models also emphasize the central focus of the business and positive interactions among the people in the
12.22 12.23
12.24 12.25
12.26 12.27 12.28
business. In contrast, the direction of UT is vague and there is little trust between people. These are problems. The concept of a ???relevant university??? is perplexing. Universities are society???s premier places of learning where knowledge is acquired and shared. No other social institution has this sole mission. Also, there are no a priori criteria that determine ???relevant??? knowledge and almost all has been ???irrelevant??? for a period of time, such as studies of lasers and microwaves. Transforming a university from its central mission does not serve society. This is a problem. The most recent ???vision??? of UT presented by Dr. Scarborough outlined a plan that simply was not possible and clearly not developed by knowledgeable members of UT. Its focus on financial issues at the expense of the central mission of the university demonstrated both the naivety and distance of this administration from the faculty and students. This is a problem. I am not convinced that the financial assets of UT have been managed wisely by the current administration. I remember that losses from our investments were exacerbated by risky investments. It is clear that the main campus has provided considerable financial support for the health sciences campus. The business incubator is a substantial expense. This is a problem. Finally, the response by Drs. Jacobs, Scarborough and Gold to the letter of concerns submitted by the faculty provided a key insight to their perspectives. This letter contained links to articles by S&P and Moody???s as justification. They miss the point that universities are non-profit institutions that cannot pay for themselves in the short-term if they???re expected to continue to support innovation, which in turn is based on knowledge gained through universities. The payoff is not internalized. That???s why universities must be supported by society. I shouldn???t have to say this to university administrators. This is probably the biggest problem we have at UT.
This is a failed administration
I have never experienced the level of frustration and demoralization of faculty and staff that I see today.
Single handedly Jacobs has undermined the integrity of UT. UT is barely better than a community college. Former President Vik Kapoor incorporated Com Tech into UT; Jacobs has incorporated UT into Com Tech.
I am disgusted with the current administration. The way we advertised for positions such as the Provost, and spent time and money bringing in candidates when we all knew Scott was the golden boy chosen. The people at DePaul have been laughting for years. I would like to do an evaluation of the BOT!!
I respect the president and I support his goals for the mission and vision of UT; however, it would be wonderful if he acknowledged we would not meet those goals without working together.
UT has been getting worse and worse since he became the president in all aspects. This one-size-fit-all workload is very short sighted and irresponsible decision. The damage that it will cause cannot be repaired easily. He should resign.
The sad thing is that it seems like he thinks he is doing a great job, and has the bot believing this too. You only need to compare the rankings with other schools in the state facing the same chalenges to see the truth. The morale at UT is significantly worse than other institutions. The recent tragedies also are a sign of ineffective leadership (eg stabbing, kidney fiasco, track coach, radio dj twitter comments, UTMC recent settlement, etc.). Leadership by fear and intimidation is not appropriate or effective in higher Ed and more collaborative leadership consulting with the expertise of faculty senate could help avoid similar embarrassments and tragedies in the future. All of these tragedies are the responsibility of the president and bot.
My negative opinion has been forged in the last 1.5 years. At the beginning I was optimistic. Recently, however, what I have seen is an administration that has increasingly barricaded
12.30 12.31
12.32 12.33
12.35 12.36 12.37 12.38 12.39
12.40 12.41 12.42
12.43 12.44
12.45 12.46
itself behind failed policies. The solar panel project - failed; the break up of A&S - failed (he cut the budget EQUALLY, despite the fact that the departments broken up were not broken up into new colleges with equal enrollment); the “outsourcing” - PR black eye... etc.
It is hard for me to imagine myself being more dissatisfied with my president.
No further comments but just correction to last instruction: eleven not ten “dimensions” above.
If UT were an independent business, it would have been bankrupt by now. It has corrupted its product (education) in order to continue the pretense of being a scholarly institution and continue receiving tax dollars.
Jacobs is a very insecure person which may partly explain his bully style. He has had little or no success as evidenced by declining enrollment, falling retention, decreased external funding for research, and lower academic ratings. For example the law school just dropped out of the 140 rated schools to the 2nd tier of non-rated law schools. Academic decline is happening all over campus.
You need to retire and stop destroying this university since it is evident you have no desire to change.
Ten dimensions? Wow. She failed to lead the college. Very approachable but almost too busy to manage most concerns from faculty. We need a vote of no confidence in this administration
I have spent my entire professional life at UT. And, I have stayed in spite of many opportu- nities to leave for more money and prestige. UT belongs to me...and to all the faculty, staff and students who collectively make it work. Dr. Jacobs and his senior administrators have “hijacked” our university. They are attempting to turn it into their vision of what it should be, and their vision is significantly flawed! For the first time in my career, I am very fearful that the tremendous progress that has occurred at UT since I joined the faculty in 1977 is going to be erased by a few arrogant administrators!
I realize these are difficult times. I appreciate the innovative ideas, however, listen to your key stakeholders.
President Jacobs has not handled our fiscal issues in a responsible manner. His decision making regarding accepting bonuses shows his poor judgement.
Our University faces serious challenges but we are not without opportunities. The President should be much more vocal and visible in providing leadership toward a stronger University – academically, financially, and within the community.
Needs to remember what higher education is all about...not just student numbers but quality, valued, productive faculty who are supported when the need to fail a student arises due to unethical or performance failure.
I personally believe that Dr. Jacobs is meeting the expectations in his role as the President of the university. Dr. Jacobs is a solid, intelligent individual that I have complete confidence in his abilities as the President.
Thank you.
12.48 12.49
12.51 12.52
12.53 12.54
12.55 12.56
12.58 12.59 12.60
12.61 12.62
It would be helpful if he listened to and involved associate deans and department chairs more in decision-making.
a no confidence vote is long overdue
I believe that this president and his team are a complete disaster and should be replace before more long lasting damage is done to this great institution. It is easy to dismantle and not so easy to build. I do not want UT to be known as “Bancroft High” once again.
It would be more comfortable to faculty than now to be seriously involved in discussions BEFORE decisions are made, because many things that faculty know/deal with are otherwise missed. However, I appreciate that Dr. Jacobs is trying to keep UT in the mix in an economy when many universities will go bust.
I sometimes think he plays both ends against the middle - different messages to different groups, when they should all be the same
This is an adversarial president with an narrow agenda and minimal respect for the main campus. The merger should have required a new president, not someone with such obvious and misguided bias.
Dr, Jacobs has articulated his vision well and is presiding over a very active capital building project on both the Main Campus and the Health Science Campus. Dr. Jacobs has done well.
I feel the culture is that the president will do whatever is needed to get what he wants done with a closed mind to hear other opinions.
I do not believe the Presaident values what I do.
I have been disappointed in my inability to contribute in a meaningful way to this university because there is very little attempt to have faculty members involved in important decisions regarding the present and future of the institution. It is also disheartening to hear that faculty members are “problems” from the perspective of the upper administration. The majority of us are hard-working, professionals, who care about the university, students, and the community.
There were some good initial efforts to bring the college faculty and staff together - a difficult task since we were so big. I wish more had been done to unite us. I believe the unification of the faculty as a social group is problem of the university in general.
He has come into UT with great promises. Over the years his communication and engagement have not been effective in the way he chose the top administrator particularly provost..
I feel that being president of a large public institution has many challenges and that Dr. Jacobs is doing well the the many balls he has in the air.
The main campus has suffered a great deal. The faculty voice has been suppressed and administrators have become more powerful. The income disparity has grown between the two. The faculty has not seen a raise in more than 3 years and yet administrators are doled huge bonuses in this non for profit university. Bfore theis president there were no bonuses for administratrs. Highly unethical.
I believe that Dean Schmoll tired very hard to bring such disparate departments together. She did the best she could under the circumstances. She also demonstrated interest in the well-being of individual faculty.
The direct relationship between “product delivery” and strategic quality models is not under- stood. Senior staffing is using a non-academic, financial model for the delivery of scholarly products.
12.63 12.64
12.65 12.66
12.68 12.69
12.70 12.71
Dr. Jacobs is the best leader the university could dream to have. He is strategic, approachable and passionate about the progress of the institution. He is progressive and he knows how to form a team......He is special
In consistent communicator; only speaks to nursing faculty when asked by them. He seems unable to understand the needs of the College of Nursing. The only way observed to solve issues is to hire a consultant(s): problem solving needs to come from within and flow from administration and involve the students, staff and faculty.
I very regretfully must admit, that President Jacobs does not belong in the position he is in, and I hope he can and will find a better fit in another position very soon.
Surrounds himself with yes-men and brown noses, protecting his ears from that minority of faculty (who keep electing Senate and AAUP) openly critical to his direction and style. He has poisoned the well and has to go.
I often feel that I no longer work for the University of Toledo, but rather the University of Loyd. President Jacobs has formulated a vision of what our University should become, and he is quite effective at articulating that vision. Sadly, he is totally ineffective at convincing the University community to buy into it. Major stakeholders in the University community do not buy into that vision, and quite frankly he does not seen to care–at least that is what is perceived by the University Community at large. Aside from when Vic Kapour was president, I have never seen morale (I speak from nearly 35 years experience here) as low as it is right now. We need a leader who can meet us where we are, convince us of the rightness of his vision, and then lead us forward to fulfillment of that vision. The ability to do that begins with developing a climate of mutual respect. Not only has that not happened, but just the opposite is true. This University is not working well right now. It only works as well as it does because the vast majority of those of us who work here practice with professionalism and a high regard for our students. For me I feel only sorrow for where the University is right now. We could be so much more than we are if we only had effective leadership at the top. However, because I am inspired every day by my students and my profession, I will continue to do the best job that I possibly can regardless of the state of affairs at the University.
I have only had the opportunity to hear or see Mr. Jacobs during speeches and presentations offered. I am a new hire of fall 2012 and do not feel able to provide a full evaluation.
Dr. Jacobs and those he surrounds himself with demonstrate a combination of gross incompe- tence, corruption, and greed that places the university at grave risk. I hear many (students, faculty, and staff) worry about what the university will look like if this is allowed to con- tinue much longer. Students are questioning whether their degree will have any meaning or whether negative assumptions will be made about anyone who has University of Toledo on their diploma. This university seems to be run by Dr. Jacobs for Dr. Jacobs (and his friends); students and knowledge seem to be nowhere in our real strategic plan. It seems that before Jacobs got here the University reputation was on the upswing ??? we were saying goodbye to Bancroft High ??? now we are known for declining enrollments, lack of rigor in our educational programs, serious errors in procedures and judgment, and for one gaffe after another. This seems destined to be Dr. Jacobs??? legacy.
He seems sensitive to the Trustees, which is appropriate, and less to faculty and students, which is not. For that reason I really wish UT would do as many fine universities do, and have a (non-UT) outstanding world-class academic on the Board.
There is no sense of working toward a coherent advancement of the University. Every few months a new initiative springs forth with little follow-through. There is little or no effective conversation with faculty and staff. There is too much concern for top-down administrative authority over every aspect of UT.
12.73 12.74
12.77 12.78
12.80 12.81 12.82
12.84 12.85
Faculty are concerned about the deficits and the contradictory statements made about the role of research at the university. They are frustrated with the lack of a contract and declining enrolment.
Excellent overall leadership skills. Innovative strategy to create University of the future.
Tough job: regional University in an MSA with declining population in a state that is defund- ing education intransigent union, and no good tools to control faculty quality. But the lack of emphasis on student success (timely graduation in desired major with a regionally compet- itive level of excellence), lack of transparency in the current financial straits, and clinging to divisive solutions, results in an overall performance that is a disservice to northwest, Ohio.
Overall, Dr. Jacbos started out with good intent and good effort to be inclusive but, over time, convinced that the “world that universities functioned in was about to make a rapid change, has now centralized all decision making and is making decisions with little input from real stakeholders and is rushing decisions that are having a negative impact on the university.
PLEASE NOTE that I have tried to provide an evaluation that is as objective and balanced as possible. I believe Pres Jacobs has done some things very well. In fact, more than half of the above items are scored as “Meet Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations”. I also believe Pres Jacobs has done some things very poorly. I hope my comments, both positive and negative, are viewed as constructive feedback, with equal and due consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments, and hope they will contribute to the betterment of our University and the administration.
needs to decide on whether he is the Dean or Chancellor. The Dean job is frequently shunted aside or left to subordinates with sufficient oversight. Things fall through the cracks.
Glad he realizes that the union folks are the biggest problem. If he wants the school to succeed, get rid of the union folks and bring in those who truly care about the University and are willing to work.
A new Chancellor is required at this point in time. We will continue to see extensive quality failures in the hospital.
I am astonished that this individual has managed to keep his job.
I have witness the growth of the university since Dr. Jacobs has become president and think he has done an excellent job. He is very professional, very strategic and definitely a visionary. I also have a great deal of respect for his leadership style. He is firm but also personable. He treats all with dignity and respect and values others opinions even if it is not congruent with his. He is open to suggestions and ideas but when it comes to make tough decisions he is able to do so even in the face of opposition. I think you have hired the right man for this job and I look forward to watching the university continue to grow.
Jacobs and co are leading UT and particularly the Main Campus to destruction. They have no interest in and no understanding of a University. How does a “relevant” University differ from a Community College. In the vision of Imagine 2017 it does not! Time to fire expensive and ineffectual administrators!
Do not have much contact with this administrator much. hardly see him at any functions. difficult to fully assess him appropriately.
I have a unique perspective as I have a period of time that I have not been in the UT system. On my return, I noticed a definite, and very positive changes at UT, and I would attribute much of that continuous positive improvement to the leadership.
12.86 12.87
12.89 12.90
12.93 12.94
12.95 12.96 12.97
I respect his visionary leadership that brought UTMC and UT together. However, I do not think his leadership has been up to the task of melding us into “us-ness.”
Uphill fight from the beginning with main campus predjudice against MD but the merger he engineered has done the most for bost institutions and the city of anything in a long time. If main campus faculty would not be continuously adversarial they might find things work out better and they are more consulted.
we have been most fortunate to have the leadership of Dr. Jacobs for as long as we have. the university of toledo is a large ship that is barely making a turn at this time, and momentum needs to be maintained. it is a shame that there is no much resistance to the needed changes on both campuses to raise us from a tier 4 university. Dr. Jacobs is totally dedicated to such an improvement and has no other agenda. change is needed and is never easy. he is not afraid of making the hard choices needed to improve. I have never enjoyed working for a better leader. in any field.
I feel the President cares a great deal for this university but does not follow through very well on plans or communicating with the faculty. He also needs work with creating changes in a timely manner.
We need a new president who has the educational sense to manage the financial, personnel, educational and scientific needs of the University with an unbiased view to how to improve the salaries of the upper echelon with yearly bonuses which are shaved from the backs of the workers and then claim a budget deficit. If we are in a budget deficit let all administrators work for a $1/yr to reduce the budget deficit. They can afford it after making $300 K for a number of years. I will have to work for the next 30 years to reach salary equity.
In summary, Dr. Jacobs gives the impression of autocratic leadership. He does not appear to listen to or care about the input from faculty from MC. If he did, he would not exclusively promote HSC faculty to high-powered administrative positions. He makes decisions without MC input and gives appearance to care more about resume building than about running the university. He apparently views MC faculty as second-class citizens, appears to be using the current financial downturn as an excuse to impose his own desires on the university, disregarding the contract and developing his own pet projects. He also makes decisions that are inconsistent with the financial down-turn of the university. For example, how does the breaking up of the College of arts and Sciences into multiple smaller colleges save the university money? You are going from paying for a single set of infrastructure for the original College to multiple infrastructures for multiple Colleges. How does this save money? Why this was done was never explained and appears to more of a “divide and conquer” strategy than something that would benefit the University and save it money.
Dr. Jacobs has a challenging and mostly thankless job; my comments are meant to be helpful, not hurtful.
From my 15 years experience this is the worst period of my career at the University of Toledo.
The merger has resulted in decreased support for teaching and research. Faculty are now asked to do tasks that support staff used to do, such as entering the courses in Banner. Another example is the difficulty in getting personnel appointed on a research project. After a while, you get tired of fighting your university in order to get your work done and you stop caring.
Dr. Jacobs is an embarrassment for this university This is the worst university administration I have ever worked for, or have ever known.
Morale is at an all time low. We need a leader who can build the university and not tear it down as our current leader is.
12.103 12.104
12.105 12.106
We need someone who will fight for higher education and spend more time in Columbus arguing for investment in higher education and not accept the trend towards disinvestment in this important societal infrastructure. I do not feel that he really believes in higher education but is just doing this job for some kind of personal satisfaction or monetary gain.
The problem is that faculty and staff are not involved in decision making. Obviously, there are problems but the President has not involved faculty and staff in defining these problems and looking for appropriate solutions (see my comments for #11, above). Decisions are handed down to faculty and staff on a “take it or leave it” basis.
It has been an honor and a privilege to work with Dean Schmoll. I regret that she is no longer the dean of my college.
The trustees are foolish to believe they endorse a leader. Funny that altruism is part of UT code when jacobs doesnt understand the word or its meaning
I have very impressed with Dean Nagi. He really cares about the students, faculty, college, and university.
I think I have said enough. He certainly does not have my confidence.
I have really no input for Lloyd Jacobs. I am not entirely sure what would be the appropriate amount of interaction I should anticipate regarding the President, so I cannot even comment if I think I am underinformed or appropriately informed.
The President has shown a marked tendency to attempt to micromanage Colleges and even departmental activities, and this has significantly diverted his attention from securing public and private support for the University.
Under this administrator our college has had 4 deans in the 9 years I have been here. The last 3 have been assigned to us by upper-level administration. We have not had a dean with a true commitment to the mission of a college of education. We have not had a true long term agenda for progress and growth. In turn, it is hard to believe that the President values our work and supports it.
President Jacobs is doing an exemplary job in regards to doing what it takes to make UT not only survive, but thrive. His knowledge of the issues in higher education is up-to-date and he is creative and thoughtful in his problem-solving and decision making. He just needs to work on more effectively communicating things to faculty, which to his defense is quite difficult when some faculty (hopefully just a vocal minority) have such negative and poisonous attitudes.
Quite frankly, I feel like I am repeating myself. Dr. Jacobs is a poor role model for state- holders on this campus. There is strong feeling that he is not concerned about the opinions of others, does not believe in shared governance, does not thoroughly vet decisions, does not hold members of his administration accountable for their decisions, and in short, does not understand the academic side of this university.
I feel that under Dr. Jacobs tenure at UT, we are seeing the Univeristy slip past the point of no return. This institution, which was once a beacon of higher education in Ohio has become a shell of its former self and will continue the downward slide with his continued watch from on high. I understand that there are many factors which have gone into the current state of the University. It is truly dissapointing to see the way the University is being run, with too few faculty and staff, a major focus on the Medical School and no real glimmer of hope that things will ever get better.
Improvements have been made - he does make every effort according to his ability.
12.112 12.113
Listen to and discuss with the faculty more. Compromise to find a middle ground, rather than forcing the idea or plan forward. Be willing to sacrifice for the faculty and students as a leader.
The worst university president I have had in my 35 years career.
During Dr. Jacobs tenure as President of the University of Toledo both campuses have un- dergone dramatic esthetic improvements.
Quite simply, all one has to ask is, “Are we better off now than we were before Dr. Jacobs became president?” Sadly, the answer is no. Tuition is higher, enrollment is on the decline, faculty are leaving, administrative costs have skyrocketed, and a murky budget has become even murkier. Some elements of Dr. Jacobs vision are admirable, and I support many of them, but his communication is lacking and the implementation of his mandates have been haphazard. The continuous reorganization and formation of colleges perfectly illustrates this. Had faculty been consulted and included, many of the partnerships being formed would have been suggested.
Dr. Jacobs, overall, has been terrific for the University and deserves the support of the Board, faculty and staff. While some criticism is inevitable, as stated above, there may be benefits for creating accountability for hiring/staffing/budgets within departments, schools and colleges and less of the current model of central control.
This person needs to be promptly removed from his position. Otherwise, UT is in deep trouble. The basic problem all along is that he should not have been hired. Does not have the experience or a PhD even. Came from a small college MCO as an interim President. We need a new national search for this post as soon as possible.
His performance is disastrous for the University. He has no concept of what would make UT an appealing destination for prospective students. As far as I can see, he has no interest in education and is well on his way to destroying the University. He should be fired before it is too late.
It amazes me how often contract negotiations are delayed or meetings are cancelled, over many months. A good leader and manager would do everything possible to make these negotiations as easy and short as possible. When meeting an average faculty member for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time, he does not recognize that he has met that person before, unless that person is in a position to move his personal agenda forward. Hiring so many new people while cutting staff is a “forked tongue” approach to management and removes credibility from the office.
LJ was trained as a surgeon and not for the academic setting. He has alienated the community and we are known as “Bancroft High” . Enrollment is down and tensions on the campus are escalating with his lack of leadership. The BOT allows this to continue and has turned over their power to him. Sad that university has deteriorated to this embarrassing level and no one addresses his role in the deterioration of the place.
The president is a poor leader, and has had plenty of time to improve. He has not. He needs to be replaced because he does not have the confidence of the faculty, the staff, or the community anymore. We need to begin to look to a new leader outside the institution who can establish a new environment, and we can move on from the confrontational environment that currently exists. Many people who deeply love this university and who have committed their lives to it feel they have no role in it anymore. We have lost so much–we cannot afford to lose anymore. At some point, the trustees have to decide whether the institution is harmed by its leadership, and if so, that leadership must go. No president is more important than the institution.
It is no longer possible for me to support and defend this administration from its critics. Their interests are no longer aligned with mine, a research active, high-acheiving teacher and
12.122 12.123 12.124 12.125
12.126 12.127 12.128
scholar. Any hopes of retiring here are quickly evaporating. I will be on the job market this fall. I hope to not have to relocate as I have really grown to like it here, but I doubt this aircraft carrier will be able to turn in time.
He needs to be more inclusive and invest in primary care for the wellbeing of institution Excellent. Thanks for investing effort and energy in improving health and training the next generation.
If his leadership is not being adversely controlled by the board of trustees, then we must move in a different direction. On the other hand, if the board of trustees is too controlling, then we must change this immediately.
Time for a change.......................
We are blessed to have a great person in this leadership position
Dr. Jacobs please understand that not all faculty agree with the vocal faculty senate and AAUP leadership. Some of us have withdrawn for awhile because we have also recieved the “wrath of Dowd, Roulliard, et. al.” They have spoken unkind things about several HSC faculty that have held leadership positions both publically and in private. They have actually blocked some possible participation by some of us. Since they control the “committee on committees” they position themselves and their click on the key governance. Those of us that speak in favor of you are actually not respected. I heard you this summer speak of “free speech”. Since I can not get a seat at the table right now, my speech is not heard. However, until the naysayers go away I will dedicate my service to the University through teaching, scholarship and honesty.
Overall Dr. Jacobs is a good leader for UT.


Anonymous said...

What the BOT needs to understand is that poor reviews by the Faculty is not a sign of something good. Many presidents at some very fine academic institutions are beloved by the Faculty. Our President lacks the respect of the Faculty and shows no respect for the Faculty. Hopefully the Board of Trustees will understand that this is not good for the University.

Anonymous said...

I'll take senate at its word that 33% is a good response to a survey like this. What shocks me, however, is how many good things were said about Jacobs & Co. Jacobs & Co and simply spin the survey to prove he has to get rid of the deadwood before his vision can take hold.

Anonymous said...

The rhetorical gymnastics show that Koester will put on in reponse to this is going to rival Nadia Comenici.

Anonymous said...

"What shocks me, however, is how many good things were said about Jacobs & Co. "

Many folks in STEM and at UTMC have benefited, or certainly not been greatly impacted, by the actions of this Administration so it does not surprise me at all that favorable comments appeared in the survey.

But the Administration serves all units, faculty and students at the UT and as such should represent all of them, not favor some over the expense (budget cuts and loss of staff and faculty positions) of so many others.

Anonymous said...

On average, the numbers of negative (worse than "meet expectations") over positive ("meet expectations" or better) responses is 2.5:1 in all catergories. Yes, we feel that the result could be even more impressive. However, it is negative enough for the president to be fired (grade D absolutely insufficient for a student to pass). Don't forget that this will be accompanied by another impressive result of his activity, ~ 10% drop in enrollment this year, on the top of the previous year 6%.

Anonymous said...

Re the big budget cuts

Here's the Blade article outlining a total of $14-$17 million in proposed budget cuts to programs campus wide - $10.5 million on main campus alone.

Interesting is that STEM and the Health Science Campus are also facing big cuts.

UT's projected 2014 deficit is $30 million.

Wow! For better or worse the next few years are going to bring on some pretty drastic changes at UT mandated by BIG budget cuts if nothing else.

The article mentions the recent memo to the deans. Can somebody post a link to that memo?

Anonymous said...

Why do we get this same shit year after year after year? And it only gets worse! The students, tax-payers, faculty and staff of the university deserve much better than this........

Anonymous said...

Dispite what the BOT says publicly about Jacobs the evaluations show no support for the president. And so a lack of support for the direction the BOT is taking the University. Their defense of jacobs is only an attempt to defend themselves.

Anonymous said...

More budget cuts? Who would have ever thought...36 million already, what's another 14-17?

Anonymous said...

I hope you have already seen this:
As you can see the Chair of BOT is already spinning his lies "When the board does his next evaluation, Mr. Koester said, he would consider the faculty review, though he noted that it isn’t unusual for faculty to hold a certain animus toward a university president."
Also notice the lis that "The board has decided not to reduce its projected deficit by raising tuition", when not raising tuition has been mandated by the State for ALL public universities.

Anonymous said...

I just read AAUP Bulletin 131. It warms my heart to hear that the Collegian's report of Faculty Senate's acquiescing to El Gordo's "supremacy clause" was wrong. Even the allegedly pro-Jacobs business school rejected the move unanimously. Let's keep at this, friends.

Anonymous said...

so, when vote of no confidence? Bloggie are you Jake?

Anonymous said...

Somewhat related (from UT-AAUP Bulletin):"The Supremacy clause makes a newly created University Council the supreme body on campus with power to overrule any academic decisions by the Faculty Senate and the colleges."

Doesn't it ring like Iran's Supreme Council? Why don't we call Jacobs Ayatollah? This is fucking outrageous!

You think, BOT cares what we wrote in the evaluations? They act like godlings of NW Ohio -- the ones that do stupid things with impunity, and nobody can stop them. Now, we got two more turds in government who want to bring Right to work to Ohio.

Ohio: if this is what you put up with, go ahead! Just stop teaching about the Revolution and Enlightenment -- those values were meant for democracies, not devolved nazi-like neo-feudalist enclaves that tolerate Ayatollah Jacobs, the BOT mullahs, and this utter non-sense.

Better yet, Kasich, why don't you follow the Texas model for removing progressive ideas from textbooks. UT Administration will help in that. Only then you can raise future youths in your image so Ohio can be ruled by despots and BOT godlings that are ruining intellectual life in Toledo. You have until next year's election, because after that you will be over!


Anonymous said...

BOT meaning

They forgot

1. Board of Turds
2. Buffoons of Toledo
3. Bastion of Toe-Suckers