Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Faculty Senate Evaluation of UT Graduate School Dean Komuniecki

Please forgive format changes that took place in reproducing this document verbatim.


University of Toledo
Faculty Senate Report on the Administrative Performance of1
Dean Patricia Komuniecki
evaluated by
The University of Toledo Graduate Faculty

Number of respondents: 111 Number of eligible respondents: 594
1.00 = Unsuccessful
2.00 = Needs Improvement

Spring 2015
19% response rate
Range of scores
3.00 = Meets Expectations 4.00 = Exceeds Expectations
5.00 = Role Model
Dean Komuniecki’s overall performance score .............................................. 3.18 Area Page
Administrative Areas Score
  1. Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility 3.10 1
  2. Leadership 3.14 5
  3. Responsibility and Accountability 3.23 9
  4. Communication/Interpersonal Skills 3.15 12
  5. Diversity and Inclusion 3.41 15
  6. Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff 2.97 17
  7. External Relations 3.33 20
  8. Program Development 3.10 22
  9. Problem Solving and Decision-Making 3.05 25
  10. Planning & Organizing 3.25 28
  11. Financial Management 3.28 30
Comments on overall administrative performance
1 This assessment would not have been possible without the invaluable service provided by the individuals at The Center for Creative Instruction, including, but not limited to, Bobbi Vaughan and Brian Szabo. This evaluation was administered by the 2014–15 Faculty Senate Executive Committee:
Karen Hoblet, President Kristen Keith, Vice President Linda Rouillard, Past President
Lucy Duhon, Executive Secretary Mike Dowd, at-large MC rep Scott Molitor, at-large MC rep
Marlene Porter, at-large HSC rep, Frederick Williams, at-large HSC rep. Mary Humphrys, OFC Representative
Faculty Senate: 3320 University Hall, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: 419.530.2112; Fax: 419.530.2114; Email:
Area 1 Dean Komuniecki Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
(a) Does the dean adhere to principles of academic freedom and shared governance? (b) Are processes open and transparent?
(c) Do past decisions indicate credible future leadership?
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 1............................................. 3.10
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 21
  • The dean demonstrates consistent leadership and respect for academic freedom and shared governance, to produce first-best solutions to academic issues and to insure the academic integrity of all college programs.
  • Transparency is a hallmark: the dean actively engages faculty and staff to address issues facing the college and incorporates their input into solutions so that decisions have a college- wide foundation. Decisions are based on core values and serve to guarantee academic in- tegrity throughout the college.
  • Past actions leave no doubt that the dean’s future actions will be trustworthy, and will be made in the best interest of students, faculty, and staff.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 23
    • The dean acts in a way to nurture the understanding of academic freedom and shared
      governance among faculty as a way to preserve the long-term integrity of academic programs.
    • Decision processes of the dean are professional and transparent. Faculty and staff are in- cluded in each stage of the decision-making process. Academic integrity is a key component of each decision. The dean openly accepts responsibility for the ethics and fairness of each decision.
    • Past actions of the dean have been consistent, producing trust in faculty and staff that the dean’s future actions will be ethical and fair.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 23
      • The dean makes decisions with an uncompromising commitment to the principles of aca- demic freedom and shared governance, thus promoting academic integrity across all college programs.
      • Faculty and staff are consistently encouraged by the dean to provide input on the issues facing the college and, once decisions are made, the dean openly discusses the rationale for each decision. The dean’s decisions are ethical and fair. Decisions are made for the right reasons and serve to promote academic integrity.
      • The dean’s past actions instill confidence that future actions will be worthy of faculty and staff trust.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 21
        • The dean does not adhere to principles of academic freedom and shared governance on a
          consistent basis, raising doubts about the commitment to academic integrity.
        • Informs faculty and staff of issues faced by the college, but does so inconsistently and typi- cally after decisions are made. The dean typically does not provide the rationale for her/his decisions. The dean needs coaching to improve impartiality.
        • Past actions of the dean have been inconsistent and do not serve as a credible predictor of future actions.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 17
  • The dean shows little or no respect for either academic freedom or shared governance, and
    little or no regard for academic integrity.
  • The dean does not routinely inform faculty and staff of issues facing the college and does not openly communicate decisions that have been made. No rationale is provided for such decisions other than appearing to suit the dean’s preferences only. The dean does not exhibit a propensity to match words with corresponding actions.
  • Past actions of the dean produce little or no trust that future actions will be ethical or fair. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 1 ...................................... 6
    Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 1 (verbatim)
  1. 1.1  Some decisions that the dean have made are really good and have helped graduate studies at the University of Toledo thrive. In fact, the decisions have reversed poor decisions that past deans have made. Specifically, I am referencing deadline dates.
  2. 1.2  The fiasco with the creation of a diversity certificate proposed and offered by someone without graduate faculty status speaks for itself.
  3. 1.3  Decisions on program duplication (College of Education courses) in other colleges (Social Jus- tice) cannot be done during the summer when faculty is not around. Ron Opp should not have been allowed to push through duplicate courses when faculty are not under contract to be at meetings.
  4. 1.4  The Dean needs to work more carefully to consider the academic integrity and input of her colleagues in all colleges. She has a tendency to make uninformed decisions that favor the administration or particular administrators rather than thinking critically about her decisions relative to the impact they may have curriculum, the lives and workload of faculty.
  5. 1.5  Dean Komuniecki is an excellent leader of the College of Graduate Studies and makes decisions in a fair and impartial manner.
  6. 1.6  I have so few opportunities to interact with her, but I thought her response to the faculty concerns about the Diversity Certificate were forthright, clear, concerned, and accommodating. A difficult situation well handled, from what I saw.
  7. 1.7  Dean makes every effort to stifle shared governance. Special Grad Faculty meeting this year and the 2 year hold up on by-law revisions are examples of the Dean not trusting graduate faculty members to openly discuss issues.
  8. 1.8  I have been impressed with Dr. Komuniecki’s performance since I arrived at UT two and a half years ago. I think she is an energetic leader that is changing the face of graduate education at UT.
  9. 1.9  The dean appears to believe rules and standards, as discussed, voted on, and posted by the Graduate Council, are not relevant to her or to the conduct of the Graduate Council business. The most generous interpretation of this would be that she is ignorant of them.
  10. 1.10  There is no shared governance with this administrator;decisions are made by fiat with little or no transpareany
  11. 1.11  I participate few events the Dean was talking including all annual meeting of graduate school. She is absolutely a disaster.
  12. 1.12  The dean disregards any opinion inconsistent with her view. Discussion is discouraged by her long monologues. To interject an opinion one must verbally interrupt.
  13. 1.13  Changes on the health science campus graduate programs have resulted in less administrative presence and difficulty for the students.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 2 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
  1. 1.14  PK should be above internal politics - allowing non-qualified individuals to offer graduate courses is not acceptable.
  2. 1.15  She has already destroyed the graduate school system... Her ways or the highways with no respect to the experience of other faculty, including those that have established a much stronger training history than her. No transparency at all: She never explains any action or decision. She continues to take us backward while graduate education is changing at a speed of light.
  3. 1.16  There is a sinister, dishonest campaign against the Dean, which totally misrepresents her. It’s a snide and deceitful campaign. I suspect that’s what has led to this smear campaign... I mean, survey.
  4. 1.17  At Graduate Committee meetings the Dean makes great effort to report her activities and why she did what she did.
  5. 1.18  As a matter of academic integrity and the success of graduate programs, I am consistently frustrated by the fact that GA stipends have not increased in several years, while at the same time GA funding has been cut several times over that same period. Peer programs are offering anywhere from $2000 to $5000 more per year for GA stipends, and it is increasingly difficult for us to recruit our top applicants.
  6. 1.19  The Dean makes major decisions affecting graduate programs without discussion of these deci- sions with the colleges affected, nor adequate explanations as to why these decisions have been made. For example, canceling live orientation on both campuses for new graduate students, despite requests to reconsider. Her primary argument has been to list other institutes that have online orientations only, and how much money will be saved. To my knowledge, COGS budget has not been cut for several years. Lowering our standards because of other programs is not justified.
  7. 1.20  Not receptive nor open to feedback of others with differing opininions. Favors people who think like she does
  8. 1.21  The Dean is a top-down administrator who does not seem to realize that her role is to serve and foster programs, graduate faculty, and especially graduate students rather than the other way around.
  9. 1.22  I have never received an email or communication from this Dean’s office or had a chance to interact with her over on the HSC. It seems that she prefers to stay on MC and deal with MC issues alone. Very adversarial when asked about HSC student issues.
  10. 1.23  Transparency is lacking. Decisions tha are made at the dean’s office are typically made late in the cycle and for reasons that are never made available to faculty or department chairs. Consequently, the office is sort of informational blackhole. I believe this attitude trickles down to the staff who often seem unwilling or unable to answer routine questions. The dean should model better interactions with faculty at every level both to gain trust and learn from the experience of graduate programs on the ground.
  11. 1.24  Dean Komuniecki sometimes takes action without proper faculty input, such as from Graduate Council. It seems this is most likely to happen when other administrators are asking for new program approvals.
  12. 1.25  I believe the dean consistently has the Grad students always in the forefront when making decisions. She continually celebrates success and works on weaknesses in the grad offices.
  13. 1.26  I feel that the Dean has a somewhat authoritarian approach in her leadership position. She has not been very receptive to the specific challenges faced by faculty in the biomedical sciences in regard to graduate student issues and seems to follow a “one size fits all” in her approach to the different graduate programs.
  14. 1.27  She seems remote.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 3 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 1: Academic Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility
  1. 1.28  I have not had a lot of personal contact with her. However, from my standpoint, she has been doing the job.
  2. 1.29  “Meets expectations” either the expectations are too high, or the dean does not meet expecta- tions. There is not an uncompromising commitment to principles of academic freedom although I think Dr. Komuniecki has more commitment in this area before and possibly early on. I don’t think faculty and staff are consistently encouraged to provide input although the rationale for decisions is often given. I think trust is waning.
  3. 1.30  The budget should be discussed with each college not just given out, to ensure that all program needs are considered and not one program from one college favored above another. The meeting with associate deans concerning program needs should be interactive.
  4. 1.31  Strong Advocate for Integrity in education. Great care to work within the shared governance structures. Provides as much information as possible in a timely manner to Graduate Council. Provides updates to information as things change. An strong and steady advocate for graduate students to the administration and board of trustees in an environment where the focus can be on undergraduate.
  5. 1.32  Dr. Komuniecki does not adhere to the principle of shared governance. She keeps information from the Graduate Faculty and the Graduate Council. Dr. Komuniecki treats Graduate Council as if it is her private little sandbox. Past actions of Dr. Komuniecki have produced little or no trust that future actions will be ethical or fair. Dr. Komuniecki’s actions make it clear she believes that neither Graduate Faculty nor Graduate Council rules apply to her. Nixonian, truly. As a MC faculty member, I find her treatment of HSC students and faculty to be disgraceful. It is evident that Dr. Komuniecki has absolutely no regard for academic integrity – all that matters to her is what she wants, students be damned.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 4 of 35
Area 2 Dean Komuniecki Leadership
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, traditional leadership attributes should be considered along with attributes that include, but are not limited to the extent to which . . .
  1. (a)  the dean demonstrates insight and motivation as departments and faculty build, strengthen, and refine a cohesive set of academic and research programs,
  2. (b)  the dean’s actions and resource allocations are demonstrably free of favoritism or bias,
  3. (c)  the dean effectively represents and advocates for the mission and visibility of the college within
    the university,
  4. (d)  the dean publicly recognizes the contributions of others in successful college-level performance
    and actions, and
  5. (e)  the dean’s professional and social behavior serve as an exemplar for faculty, staff and students.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 2 ............................................ 3.14
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 20
  • The dean is a proven leader in all aspects of job described above.
  • Faculty, students, and chairs consistently look to the dean to provide inspiration and exper- tise throughout the development of a project.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 23
    • Clearly stands out as a leader in most or all aspects of job described above.
    • Faculty, staff or students recognize the significant benefit from dean’s contribution to a project.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 26 The dean consistently demonstrates a leadership role in most aspects of job described above.
      Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 17 The dean shows some interest in and talent for the leadership role described above, though
      he/she will not be effective without coaching.
      Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 16
      The dean shows little or no interest or ability in providing above mentioned leadership to faculty, staff, or students.
      Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 2 ...................................... 9 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
      Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 2 (verbatim)
  1. 2.1  Overall, Dean K does a fine job here. The Graduate School is stronger in recent years. However, would like to see leadership that includes more graduate funding for various colleges.
  2. 2.2  Dean Komuniecki is fair as well as a proven leader.
  3. 2.3  I would love it if there were more time to work out ways to support our graduate programs, but I think there just isn’t time in her schedule to meet with the smaller programs. Other than that, she’s been fine.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 2: Leadership
  1. 2.4  Look at public issues with the Graduate Student Association and with the Graduate Council for academic year 14-15 for two pointed examples of inability to model or develop leadership in faculty or students.
  2. 2.5  One of the main resources for graduate education is graduate assistantships. The dean has led development of NO cohesive and fair plan for allocations of resources. She continues to act unilaterally or with a small group of selected associates to perpetuate unfair, unreasonable, ungrounded allocation of graduate assistantships, even though faculty have repeatedly asked for allocations to be reconsidered over the past decade. She provides no transparency regarding how decisions of allocations are made, one would assume because to do so would betray her favoritism to the natural sciences. Perhaps even more important, she provides no apparent leadership at the college level to ensure the integrity of assistantships and the fair treatment of graduate students receiving them. There is no established, confidential process for students to bring problems to the attention of the graduate college. There are students in this university who are working 80 hours a week on their assistantships, teaching four different course preps. Often these are for sections that are assigned to faculty, and faculty members’ names are on the sections as the instructors, yet the faculty member has never set foot in the classroom. Students in these situations are entirely vulnerable, as their “mentors” who are exploiting them have their entire professional futures, including exams and dissertations, in their control. This problem has been raised and no action is taken. The graduate dean should be a leader in ethical treatment of graduate assistants, and has failed miserably to do this.
  3. 2.6  This Dean is not a good leader. Her attitudes in general do not inspire confidence.
  4. 2.7  1) Dean’s professional and social behavior is unacceptable, immature and very week. 2) Her policies are not well planned and implemented. 3) People like Dr. Hefzy made her career worst. 4) She did not try to address any issue that we brought to her attention.
  5. 2.8  There is a consistent bias toward graduate programs on the main campus
  6. 2.9  Patsy is an effective advocate for COGS and the university-wide graduate programs
  7. 2.10  An area where the Dean is not taking active leadership is in ’educating’ the state board of regents about the need for flexibility in the amount of time expected for completion of graduate degrees in sciences. The expectation of 4 semesters to complete an MS degree (8 for PhD) pushes a cookie-cutter approach to training scientists. This does not support training students in the technical, quantitative, or communications skills to function in science related fields.
  8. 2.11  The Dean is a true role model of leadership. She is an advocate for the University and of graduate study opportunities. She listens to and encourages dialogue regarding ways to improve the College.
  9. 2.12  She ignores faculty and most graduate students do not even know how she looks like. She acts as a dictator: Her ways or the highways with no respect to the experience of other faculty, including those that have established a much stronger training history than her. No apparent vision... No leadership skills whatsoever... A divisive rather than an inclusive leader.
  10. 2.13  It’s pretty transparent that jealous under-achievers are trying to manipulate how this Dean is perceived... hence, questioning her leadership. Same old, same old.
  11. 2.14  People genuinely respect her and value her thoughts.
  12. 2.15  Again, I understand the lack of a proactive approach to supporting graduate students financially so as to allow programs to recruit more and better students as a leadership issue.
  13. 2.16  COGS is a service office and not a college as it has no departments, faculty, programs, of study, classes, or students. The Dean has managed to turn this service office into a police unit Instead. Her staff has been with her for many years and are micromanaged as to every decision made. Questions about the possibility of more services offered to graduate students by COGS are met with referrals to contact the executive secretary for an appointment with
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 6 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 2: Leadership
the Dean, which never actually occurs. The Dean appears to have both positive and negative bias’s. The HSC-COGS office is rarely staffed with anyone except a long-time HSC employee. It was recently announced that this person also would be relocated to the main campus with no justification given. When policies are quoted in defense of a COGS decision, no arguments for logic over policy are tolerated by the Dean.
  1. 2.17  Surrounds herself with people who agree with her. Favors people in sciences and prefers their input and interaction.
  2. 2.18  She is definitely committed to the role and improving the quality of the graduate programs throughout the university.
  3. 2.19  It is unknown if there is an element of bias in giving out GA’s to colleges and departments because this information is not shared.
  4. 2.20  The Dean is frequently not transparent in her decision-making regarding allocation of resources, appears to be vindictive towards certain constituencies in that respect, has decimated the graduate school office on the Health Science Campus by removing or not replacing critical staff to the great detriment of students and programs, and behaves unprofessionally in groups by verbally mocking and displaying mannerisms (for example rolling of eyes) towards those who disagree with her.
  5. 2.21  Again- there has been no attempt to bridge the campuses with the grad programs, reach out to students with informing them of potential career opportunities, additional training, etc. Previous Dean was much better at being a presence on campus. I doubt that my students could name the dean at this point, or point to a specific action she has made happen in the last 6 months.
  6. 2.22  There is no question that the funding model employed by the dean is not inclusive of all fields, and is focused on natural sciences. Consequently, it cannot be said that the dean represents all programs nor does she advocate for programs outside of her purview. As cuts continue to grow in the social science and humanties, the dean risks starving out some of the top programs in the University in terms of placement and national (as well as international) student recruitment. The dean is not consultative by nature and it is not clear that she is aware of these problems or interested in addressing them.
  7. 2.23  Works with departments and colleges eagerly so that the needs of grad students are consistently met.
  8. 2.24  I feel that the Dean has shown partiality to the graduate programs on the main campus and has failed to listen to the different challenges faced by the graduate program in biomedical sciences. As a result, we have difficulty recruiting and retaining high quality students. These issues have severe consequences in our abilities to publish and procure extramural funding.
  9. 2.25  I see her flit by once in a while Her office is turgid and bureaucratic in its operations.
  10. 2.26  Does the job.
  11. 2.27  The dean has never met with my department nor asked to, so we see some of the effects, but also see the dean as distant from many of our concerns. We have seen better regularization of graduate applications and applications to graduate faculty. The orientation for students seems to be very good. I am not sure if much insight and motivation has been forthcoming.
  12. 2.28  It is noticeable in associate dean meetings that not all associate deans are treated equally. Some concerns are swept aside and not considered. Equal treatment and infrastructure on both campuses would be extremely helpful.
  13. 2.29  Works hard to honor accomplishments of students and faculty. She makes announcements and the COGS site includes items. Works hard on development and implementation of UT strategic plans. She advocates for Graduate and Professional programs and assures inclusion
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 7 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 2: Leadership
of faculty and GSA voice on task forces. At Graduate Council she speaks of new programs in development and invites all members to consider new programs. She offers her help and resources at Graduate Council meetings for those interested in new program development.
2.30 Patsy consistently demonstrates no actual leadership in building or strengthening graduate programs across campus. She shows respect for some Ph.D. programs and a few M.S. programs, but treats M.A. programs as if they are a complete waste of resources. Further, Patsy stopped being a dean a few years back, and she isn’t even a university administrator anymore. Instead, today Patsy is only a bureaucrat. It appears that Patsy stopped caring about actual graduate studies and now cares only about position and power.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 8 of 35
Area 3 Dean Komuniecki Responsibility and Accountability
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the extent of deans responsibility and accountability for decisions, resource allocations, and outcomes.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 3 ............................................ 3.23
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 16
  • The dean takes on tasks outside of normal job without being asked. Able to recognize the need and fill in the gap. A demonstrated leader in modeling professional behavior and demeanor to others.
  • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes and then proactively works with faculty, chairs, and staff to develop plans to move the college forward.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 29
    • The dean can always be depended upon to follow through with assigned tasks. Takes on
      tasks outside of normal job with enthusiasm when asked.
    • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes and welcomes constructive feedback from others.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 20
      • The dean usually follows through with assigned tasks by ensuring accuracy and timeliness.
        Always acts in a professional manner when dealing with others.
      • The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or out- comes.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 12
        • The dean cannot be depended upon to follow through with assigned tasks because of quality
          or timeliness. Does not display professional behavior consistently.
        • The dean denies responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or outcomes.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 14
      • The dean takes no responsibility for task accuracy, quality, or deadlines. Becomes defensive
        when given feedback about performance.
      • The dean blames subordinates for unsatisfactory decisions, resource allocations, or outcomes.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 3..................................... 20 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 3 (verbatim)
  1. 3.1  The dean seems to follow through with commitments.
  2. 3.2  Becomes defensive when given feedback about performance.
  3. 3.3  When confronted with procedures that are either ineffective or in violation of policy, the dean appears to spend all her energy defending that she is right and has little or no energy or interest in actually accepting responsibility and solving problems. She is a master at controlling meetings by talking incessantly about tangential matters that confuse the conversation and waste time, but effectively silence all other voices.
  4. 3.4  There is little effort put toward accuracy, quality or decision making. Resource allocations are not clearly stated or transparent or handled in a way that best supports the graduate school.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
  1. 3.5  She did not respond to any complain made in the past.
  2. 3.6  This statement “The dean accepts responsibility for unsatisfactory decisions, resource alloca- tions, or outcomes and then proactively works with faculty, chairs, and staff to develop plans to move the college forward” does not characterize the resolution process for 1st year medical students and summer research tuition wavier.
  3. 3.7  She always blames everything on the “system” or the “state financial situation” or the “higher administration”. She never tries to beat the challenges that higher education is facing nation- wide. She is not proactive in promoting ideas outside the box to instill a culture of research excellence.
  4. 3.8  Everything that this Dean has been demonized for is actually responsible. But the gossip in the hallways wouldn’t lead you to believe that. When it’s not this Dean, it’s another. I can remember similar smear campaigns against other Deans. It disgusts me.
  5. 3.9  She is the first to blame herself if any expectations are not met. She takes full responsibility rather than playing the blame game.
  6. 3.10  Insofar as the Dean is the college representative to the University administration, I would like to see the Dean do more to advocate for better working and learning conditions for graduate students. The University’s fee schedule, especially for first-year grad students, is absurd. First- time registration fees, enrollment fees, etc. add up to more that $1000 due before a GA is even paid for the first time. Students that might otherwise be able to complete their degrees without taking out any loans have to take out loans in order to pay those fees. It’s absurd.
  7. 3.11  Many of us have witnessed the Dean “throwing someone else under the bus” when confronted with questionable actions of her own. However, whenever the Dean achieves some action, often negatively impacting graduate students, with approval of “senior administration” she is very vocal about her success.
  8. 3.12  Blocked ability of graduate faculty to evaluate her. Unprofessional behavior with others-cuts off and limits input of other people who disagree with her.
  9. 3.13  I have not known her to shirk any responsibility. She stands by what she does and is open about it,
  10. 3.14  The dean has been very helpful in aiding students in need, and dealing with unusual circum- stances.
  11. 3.15  See previous comments about vindictiveness and lack of professional behavior. She also fre- quently does not follow through or complete critical tasks in a timely manner.
  12. 3.16  Decisions regarding funding come so extremely late in the process that the funding cycle for most other programs is already over. Hence, we are unable to recruit top students who have often been sitting on stipend offers for literally months ahead of the offers we give. This has been a complaint at the University for nearly a decade and continues to weaken our recruitment and consequently our programs. Finally, the allocations for Masters programs are extremely small. Hence, our funding offers typically fail to be competitive with peer institutions.
  13. 3.17  Her role on RAGS allows UT to shine. She eagerly invites comments about her performance as many intervals. She freely meets with any faculty member who asks, about issues that affect graduate education at UT.
  14. 3.18  Their is no accountability in the grad school.
  15. 3.19  Does the job.
  16. 3.20  Overall responsibility and accountability seem to be very good.
  17. 3.21  The actions of negating designated resources to a designated program are not preferable.
  18. 3.22  I do not know how this question area applies to the Dean. As graduate faculty, I am not sure how I could know enough details about operations of her office to respond to this.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 10 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 3: Responsibility and Accountability
3.23 Responsibility and Accountability? Consider one example. During a fall 2014 Graduate Council meeting, a council member asked Dr. Komuniecki to describe the discussion that took place at the Special Meeting of the Graduate Faculty. (That meeting was called by a petition of the Graduate Faculty to discuss the decisions Dr. Komuniecki and the GCEC made during summer 2014.) Dr. Komuniecki would not do so, claiming “a full agenda” at that meeting. That council member then made a motion to have that discussion included on the agenda at the next council meeting. After that motion received a “second,” the vote on the motion began. However, *during* that vote, Dr. Komuniecki called for a quorum vote. This was an obvious attempt by Dr. Komuniecki to kill consideration of that motion and, hence, a discussion of her summer 2014 decisions. The vote proceeded after a ruling by an expert in Robert’s Rule. When the motion passed, Dr. Komuniecki – our Graduate College Dean and Vice Provost for Graduate Affairs – claimed that the vote was invalid. The Graduate Council rejected her claim. Responsibility? Accountability? Those are apparently words without meaning.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 11 of 35
Area 4 Dean Komuniecki
Communication/Interpersonal Skills
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
  1. (a)  The extent to which the job requires the dean to explain, describe, persuade, negotiate, and generally convey intended meanings and information to faculty, students, chairs, and staff.
  2. (b)  The extent to which the dean uses appropriate media to convey particular messages or infor-
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 4 ............................................ 3.15
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 21
Takes on responsibility to initiate communication with faculty, chairs, staff, or students. Works consistently to develop team effectiveness.
Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 17
  • The dean shows concern and commitment to ensuring excellent communication practices.
  • The dean demonstrates teamwork capabilities and makes suggestions on how faculty, chairs, and staff can work together more effectively.
    Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 34
    • The dean provides and presents verbal communication accurately and professionally.
    • The dean does not require assistance to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
    • The dean consistently demonstrates teamwork capabilities when working with faculty, chairs,
      and staff.
      Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 14
      • The dean shows limited effort to communicate and to respond to complaints, but does so inconsistently. Information stated is not understood by others and is often incorrect.
      • The dean often requires assistance to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
      • The dean shows limited effort working with faculty, chairs, or staff, but does so inconsistently.
        Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 15
    • The dean shows little or no effort to communicate to faculty, students, chairs, and staff on
      a consistent basis.
    • The dean does not effectively respond to complaints. Unable to resolve interpersonal con- flicts.
    • The dean demonstrates little or no effort toward working with faculty, chairs, or staff. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 4..................................... 10
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 4 (verbatim)
  1. 4.1  Not a lot of communication, but what I’ve seen has been clear, responsible, and direct.
  2. 4.2  Dean demonstrates fear of working collaboratively with faculty, chairs, and others.
  3. 4.3  The Dean has been very good in reaching us for help and has also been very clear about communicating her vision and how she plans to accomplish her goals.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
  1. 4.4  To my knowledge, the dean communicates solely via official email messages sent out by her staff. She has never initiated any conversation about our graduate program, even though it is one of the largest in the university. She shows no interest in working with faculty or in learning about the programs in her college so as to be able to support and promote them effectively. Absolute failure on this point.
  2. 4.5  Communuication skills are not great. This Dean is often quite condescending/pejorative. It is her way or the highway.
  3. 4.6  She may say hi when she met people. But proper communication means working with others.
  4. 4.7  My only suggestions for the dean is to allow others to finish their sentence/question before responding. She has the urge to jump in immediately before a question or comment has been articulated. It is sometimes hard to get a word in, let alone a complete sentence.
  5. 4.8  The Dean works to inform the graduate faculty of the status of the College and of opportunities that may benefit specific programs. She is highly personable and communicates on a personal level with ease.
  6. 4.9  She is so arrogant with everybody: student and faculty alike. Most graduate students do not even know her or know her name. She ignores emails even from faculty with more than 20 years of experience in graduate school education. She does not even acknowledge having received emails.
  7. 4.10  Doing her absolute best while working with a dishonest group of people who are stabbing her in the back, and not even supporting the mission of the University. They will (fraudulently and dishonestly) condemn her communication skills while doing worse themselves.
  8. 4.11  The Dean has great interpersonal skills.
  9. 4.12  Many of us have witnessed rude and inappropriate verbal and/or email attacks on numerous occasions by the Dean to someone who has disagreed with decisions she has made. The Dean frequently has negative emotional responses to logical arguments attempting to dissuade her from decisions that adversely affect graduate student populations. The Dean has made it clear on numerous occasions that she does not like her decisions to be challenged.
  10. 4.13  Communicates with only the people she sees value in. Openly shows negative feelings or disregards non science faculty.
  11. 4.14  In my encounters she was very clear and professional about expectations. She is direct and does not resort to inappropriate media to deliver communications.
  12. 4.15  Process are muddy. Rules for GA funding seem to change without clear guidelines sent to departments. Mary Main says ’this’, but in council we here ’that’.
  13. 4.16  In meetings, the Dean talks, and talks, and talks to the point that discussion of an issue is one- sided and not interactive or inclusive. She is not a good listener who takes opposing comments well.
  14. 4.17  Dr. Komuniecki consistently makes an effort to reach out the the faculty, and is an extremely effective communicator
  15. 4.18  I doubt that any of the grad students on our campus could name the current Dean. Shows no interest in Health Science Campus activities.
  16. 4.19  Reports at Grad Council are clear and keep grad faculty informed about issues that affect grad students.
  17. 4.20  She comes and goes. whither she goes? Who knows?
  18. 4.21  Does the job.
  19. 4.22  tends to be demeaning to those that do not agree with her.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 13 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 4: Communication/Interpersonal Skills
  1. 4.23  Overall, this area seems to meet expectations although I don’t think there is much going on in the way of teamwork.
  2. 4.24  The loss of graduate orientation on either campus will not add to communication skills between the faculty and new students and will add to retention problems. The loss of a designated human resource person to aid in bringing all student into the employee category adds workload to not only COGS staff, but also all Associate Deans, their staff and program directors.
  3. 4.25  The Dean is very visible on the campus. She represents the graduate and professional programs. She attends many events. It is great to have someone concerned about representing the graduate issues on our campus. I find her to be genuinely enthusiastic and sincere. She is one of the most friendly and approachable administrators at the level of Dean/Vice Provost.
  4. 4.26  Graduate Council is the primary mechanism by which Dean Komuniecki communicates with the Graduate Faculty. It seems to me that she only permits discussion of issues that she wants to discuss, regardless of the concerns of the Graduate Faculty. Dean Komuniecki does not respond well to complaints.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 14 of 35
Area 5 Dean Komuniecki Diversity and Inclusion
Please consider the following issues when assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area.
(a) The extent to which the dean promotes a diverse and inclusive culture throughout the college, including recruitment and retention of diverse mix of faculty, staff, and students.
(b) Engages in strategies that encourage diversity of thought and participation.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 5 ............................................ 3.41
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 18
  • The dean has clear strategic understanding of the benefits of diversity and inclusion in decision-making.
  • The dean creates solid relationships with people who think and act differently from self.
  • The dean includes diversity and inclusion goals in college planning.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 23 The dean is able to objectively challenge assumptions about others based on their differences.
    The dean encourages committees, groups, and departments to seek out diverse opinions. The dean actively participates in campus diversity programs.
    Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 25
    • The dean makes an effort to provide forums and training to faculty, staff, and students on
      the importance and practice of diversity.
    • The dean models inclusive communication and diversity of thinking for others.
      Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 4
      • It appears the dean needs coaching on laws and university policies related to harassment
        and workplace discrimination, along with the enforcement of those laws and policies.
      • The dean does not always consider diverse opinions or the impact of decisions on diverse others.
      • The dean complies with university requirements on diversity, but makes little effort to enact the spirit of diversity in the college.
        Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 11
    • The dean may not recognize own biases and assumptions about others.
    • The dean does not have a clear grasp of the appropriateness of communication with others who are different from self.
    • The dean needs more understanding of benefits accruing from having a diverse college. Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 5..................................... 30
      Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 5: Diversity and Inclusion
Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 5 (verbatim)
  1. 5.1  I really don’t know what she does in most parts of her job, but based on the respectful and helpful way that I’ve been treated by her personally, I would guess that she not only knows the value of diversity, but she probably seeks it in ways she can.
  2. 5.2  Dean does not consider diverse opinions and refuses to take responsibility for the impact of decisions on diverse others even when asked to examine the impact on diverse others.
  3. 5.3  The dean effectively silences any diverse voices by either ignoring them or actively attacking them. The dean has developed, to my knowledge, NO programs to actively recruit, support, and retain faculty of color or graduate students of color–the only evidence of the latter is the GOAP which has been around forever, and is a great program, but she doesn’t advertise it in any way that potential students of color are likely to find it. Support of students of color that is apparent is disproportionately for international students. Actions indicate that the dean has no meaningful recognition of her own biases and assumptions and has no appreciation of the importance of a diverse graduate faculty and student body, and no appreciation of the importance of curricula that reflect a diversity of knowledge traditions
  4. 5.4  Absolutely she did not have any idea on this matter. She did not include many faculty members from minority, women and other categories in her office.
  5. 5.5  The Dean investigates opportunities that may allow us to strengthen recruitment/retention of diverse students, particularly those from underrepresented groups.
  6. 5.6  She is beyond repair on this front.
  7. 5.7  The Dean has always upheld and promoted all policies, procedures, and commitments to equity, fairness and diversity. But in a poisoned environment like UT, she is the victim of a terrible smear campaign.
  8. 5.8  COGS does not recruit any graduate students. This is left to individual colleges. COGS does not reach out to applicants who file Incomplete applications. COGS sends letters of acceptance to international applicants postal mail which can take up to 6 weeks or more. Individual departments are invited to pay COGS the extra postage if they want more rapid mailing methods, or the applicant Is Invited to pay the extra postage.
  9. 5.9  Limits communication and input to science faculty.
  10. 5.10  I have always known her to be inclusive in her hiring practices and I have not seen any indication that she has deviated from being tha.
  11. 5.11  none
  12. 5.12  Makes clear effort to pronounce names correctly and interacts with students very well.
  13. 5.13  Expectations are met in this area. The dean does show in actions and decisions the value of diversity, though some might say it is limited to specific categories.
  14. 5.14  COGS and the Graduate Dean are very supportive of Fullbright students going the extra mile to bring them on board and it is appreciated.
  15. 5.15  I have limited knowledge about students. Clearly informs Graduate council about scholarship opportunities for Diversity initiatives. I can not speak to faculty and staff recruitment.
  16. 5.16  Patsy has strong record of promoting Diversity and Inclusion.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 16 of 35
Area 6 Dean Komuniecki Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which he/she issuccessful in the following activities:
(a) attracting, developing, and retaining high-quality faculty and staff, (b) conflict resolution, and
(c) recruitment of (or grooming) faculty members for administrative positions.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 6 ............................................ 2.97
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 10
  • The dean, in consultation with faculty and chairs, advances the college by actively engaging stakeholders in strategic visioning, assessing and aligning faculty and staff needs with both students’ and college needs, and assigning such resources appropriately.
  • The dean consistently demonstrates an ability to turn conflicts into opportunities.
  • The dean takes explicit actions to identify and groom faculty for possible appointments to
    future openings in chair or associate dean positions.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 20
    • The dean is an active participant in recruitment and selection of faculty and staff. He/she sells the college to prospective recruits and devotes resources to retain high-quality faculty and staff.
    • The dean maintains openness and transparency in communication with faculty and staff; interpersonal skill set is strong.
    • The dean encourages faculty to self-identify as candidates for future opening in a chair or associate dean positions, and provides resources for training suitable candidates.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 13
      • The dean recognizes the importance of recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and
        staff and takes steps to improve the processes.
      • The dean is able to adapt interpersonal communication styles to meet needs of faculty and staff. The dean is successful in resolving conflicts.
      • The dean looks for ways to groom faculty for possible openings in chair or associate dean positions.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 10
        • The dean is involved in recruitment of personnel, but only limited effort is devoted toward
          retaining high-quality faculty and staff.
        • The dean needs coaching to improve related skills in conflict resolution, listening, emotional control, etc.
        • The dean displays some effort or interest in grooming faculty for chair or associate dean positions that are known to be vacated in the near future.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 16
      • The dean is not actively involved in recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and
      • The dean’s interpersonal skill set is very weak. The dean is unsuccessful in conflict resolution.
      • When chair and associate dean positions are known to be vacated in the near future, the dean makes no timely effort to identify faculty as possible candidates for such positions.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 6..................................... 42 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 6 (verbatim)
  1. 6.1  She addresses issues of grad faculty status well after the fact. She has demonstrated lack of respect for grad council and does not communicate well nor work well with that body.
  2. 6.2  The dean should make more effort to have professional development for faculty.
  3. 6.3  This question is not relevant to the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies.
  4. 6.4  It doesn’t seem that there’s been any resources for so long that it feels unfair to tag her with problems created by others. On the other hand, getting at the credit hour overload for full-time enrollment was a good initiative that should make a difference.
  5. 6.5  Under Jacobs/Scarborough the basic structural components of graduate education, recruitment and retention of high quality faculty and staff have been decimated. More than anything else at UT graduate education has been harmed. Many top researchers have left going to places like NSF and Research One institutions- taking their grants and grad students with them. Recruitment of both exceptional faculty and students, in the face of the expressed expectation of nonsensical teaching loads and course enrollment requirements, has been harmed nationally. Research funding has decreased. Dean has manage to hold things together in terms of enrollment and funding for the short term but lack of thought for next 3-5 years is going to lead to continuing decline and make recovery difficult.
  6. 6.6  Most of the faculty members I know, including myself, are torn between leaving the research base they’ve developed here in Toledo to find a more supportive environment, and staying to continue established work while enduring the environment. It seems like the graduate dean would just as soon most of the graduate faculty left.
  7. 6.7  This Dean is not someone that I would like to work with.
  8. 6.8  Compare with 2014, we have 500 reduction of students in 2015. This indicate her efficiency as the dean.
  9. 6.9  She does not reward mentoring faculty, or create programs to help them provide a better training.
  10. 6.10  Excellent behavior of the Dean. However, those promoting their own agendas (often cloaked by the term ’faculty governance,’ like this survey) are so dishonest they make many more people feel like leaving UT. These awful people, not the Dean, are the ones who are really creating the poisonous environment at UT which is harming recruitment and retention of faculty and staff.
  11. 6.11  This Dean does not employ faculty, however several staff have left COGS over the past few months. It is unclear if these vacancies will be filled or more COGS services will be cut to colleges and departments for graduate studies. Communications with her current staff are frequently uninformative, or negative.
  12. 6.12  Interpersonal skill set is weak. Appears negative toward faculty outside of sciences.
  13. 6.13  I think that she genuinely looks for the best person for the job - we may not always get the applicants we would wish for.
  14. 6.14  The Dean has a clear goal to centralize all staff and services on the main campus when in fact it has been repeatedly made clear to her that is not effective nor beneficial for programs and students on the HSC. However, she continues to move in that direction to fulfill her own agenda. She is unwilling to replace staff positions on the HSC. The last COGS staff person on the HSC apparently will be moving to MC soon. The HSC COGS office was supposed to be staffed on a rotating basis by MC campus COGS staff, but that has been spotty and has now pretty much ended. There are 12 staff on MC (plus student helpers?) and only one soon-to-be moved staff person on the HSC.
  15. 6.15  I can’t name a specific action that has come out of this dean’s office in the last 6 months. Zero communication.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 18 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 6: Recruitment and Retention of Faculty and Staff
  1. 6.16  The dean has shown no interest or input in helping programs recruit faculty or retain students. Perhaps this is outside of her purview, but this general lack of interest is consistent with other problems already noted.
  2. 6.17  Dean Komuniecki is not involved in most faculty searches, however, she can be instrumental in creating an environment that encourages faculty to stay at UT.
  3. 6.18  I do not know about recruiting faculty, but she is very involved in providing departments and colleges with the tools necessary to assist us in recruiting grad students.
  4. 6.19  I know there have been changes in positions, but I am not aware of how the Dean works to recruit personnel or grooms persons for positions.
  5. 6.20  Don’t know.
  6. 6.21  Cannot say that I have seen the dean actively engage in the meets expectations description. Did not even know such expectations existed for a dean of graduate studies.
  7. 6.22  I do not know how this question area applies to the Dean. As graduate faculty, I am not sure how I could know enough details about operations of her office to respond to this.
  8. 6.23  It appears that Dean Komuniecki views some graduate faculty members to be “more equal” than others. This does not serve to attract, develop, or retain high-quality graduate faculty members.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 19 of 35
Area 7 Dean Komuniecki External Relations
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the attributes described below and also the degree to which your dean promotes college programs and your students to outside constituen- cies.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 7 ............................................ 3.33
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 14
  • The dean relates effectively with external stakeholders to advance the mission of the uni- versity. Effectively recruits students, enriches relationships with past donors, cultivates new donors and solicits gifts for both college and department activities.
  • The dean forges very productive relationships with other important stakeholders such as government officials and media representatives. The dean demonstrates prowess in raising funds for capital improvements, scholarships, and other long-term projects that span all departments and programs.
  • The dean handles difficult personalities with ease and grace.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 20
    • The dean balances his/her schedule to spend appropriate amounts of time on the devel- opment of critically important external relationships (alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials and media representatives), resulting in increased external funding of activities across most departments and programs.
    • The dean’s relationships are productive and conflicts are few and relatively minor in nature. Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 19
      • The dean makes a concerted effort to engage important external stakeholders and form constructive relationships with alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials, media representatives and other important community leaders. The dean is successful is securing external funding to support the activities of most departments and programs.
      • The dean’s relationships are constructive and moderately productive. Conflicts with external parties are few.
        Needs Improvement ............................................ Number of responses: 9
        • The dean understands the importance of external relationships, but spends little time or effort on developing these relationships. The dean has some involvement in raising money for specific projects or purposes, but does not routinely engage in fundraising for projects or purposes spanning most departments and programs.
        • The dean’s relationships with external stakeholders are weak and unproductive and will continue to be unsuccessful without coaching.
          Unsuccessful .................................................... Number of responses: 8
      • The dean is unsuccessful in fundraising or donor development of important external stake-
        holders (alumni, prospective students, past and potential donors, government officials, etc.).
      • The dean’s relationships with external stakeholders are strained and unproductive. Is un- successful in securing external funds to support college/department activities.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 7..................................... 41 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 7: External Relations
Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 7 (verbatim)
  1. 7.1  There doesn’t seem to be much progress in this area. Our college’s funding has only gone down under her tenure; not up.
  2. 7.2  Dean Komuniecki plays a major role with the Ohio Board of Regents representing our graduate level programs.
  3. 7.3  Truly no idea.
  4. 7.4  Dean’s strongest area. Represents UT graduate education well in Ohio and nationally.
  5. 7.5  I am aware of no efforts on the part of the dean to work with stakeholders or to raise funds in our college or for our programs. I would say that means she is unsuccessful.
  6. 7.6  We hear nothing about any kind of enrollment by Dean in the past.
  7. 7.7  Relationships with Health Science departments are strained, possibly non-repairable if PK’s attitude towards the HSC doesn’t shift ASAP.
  8. 7.8  I have not heard that she has ever tried to raise funds or promote our school. She never pushed for any grant application to support training in graduate school. She has never tried to create innovative programs to support research.
  9. 7.9  Always a hard working role model. Unlike the people who are running this survey/campaign, who are so unprofessional and under-achieving and never add anything constructive ... just passing around gossip, innuendo, and engaging in a smear campaign against the Dean. And this dishonest smear campaign undoubtedly affects the external perception of UT, which affects the ability to do things like raise external funding.
  10. 7.10  I do not believe the Dean has done anything to raise external funds for graduate programs. If she has, it has been miniscule.
  11. 7.11  This is one of Dean Komuniecki’s best improvements on previous Graduate deans.
  12. 7.12  Works with RAGS, Ohio Grad Deans and a number of other external entities to help UT shine.
  13. 7.13  Our graduate admissions process is archaic, inefficient, and causes us to lose out on many talented graduate students. Specific examples include insistence by the Dean to use postal mail delivery for graduate school acceptance (for international students, these letters rarely arrive) and the Extender computer program to access application files (slow, cumbersome, was off-line during peak admission season).
  14. 7.14  My perception is that the bulk of time spent in developing and maintaining relations with those in the hard sciences and STEM areas. It seems most presentations and discussion fall in these areas.
  15. 7.15  Don’t know.
  16. 7.16  The Dean has been successful in promoting the 9 credit hours for full time for graduate students to make us equal with the rest of the state, but I do not know if this Dean is expected to raise money from external resources for the graduate program at UT. One problem is stating that only 30 credit hours for MS or 90 credit hours for PhD will be covered for the programs. It appears that some colleges will be held to this while others will not be. All programs should be treated equally and with the same respect.
  17. 7.17  I do not know how this question area applies to the Dean. As graduate faculty, I am not sure how I could know enough details about operations of her office to respond to this.
  18. 7.18  At grad council Patsy drones on and on excessively about every little thing she does as grad dean. I do not recall Patsy ever mentioning external relations issues. If she was involved in such issues I’m sure we would have heard about it over and over and over again.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 21 of 35
Area 8 Dean Komuniecki Program Development
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which she/he is successful in insuring viability and growth, financial stability, and relevance for academic and research programs.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 8 ............................................ 3.10
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 18
  • The dean clearly stands out as a leader in academic and research program development and growth.
  • The dean is a strong advocate of faculty’s professional development leading to program devel- opment. Financial investments in programs are based on both relevant data and leadership decisions of the dean, made in consultation with faculty and chairs.
  • The dean works constantly to raise the relevance, image, viability, and vibrance of all aca- demic and research program, and devotes resources to achieve the college’s long-term aca- demic and research goals.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 23
    • The dean is a leader in promoting academic and research programs and insuring their sustain- ability by assigning adequate resources for program needs and for professional development of faculty.
    • The dean utilizes best evidence when making financial investments in both high-performing and promising academic and research programs.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 27
      • The dean consistently shows interest in developing all academic and research programs, and
        provides input when appropriate.
      • The dean understands professional development of faculty is essential for program develop- ment, sustainability, and growth.
      • The dean may assign program responsibilities to direct reports (e.g., chairs), but keeps on top of program management goals.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 17
        • The dean shows some interest and ability in the development and sustainability of a selec- tive group of academic and research programs, and demonstrates only limited interest in professional development of faculty.
        • The dean needs coaching to improve related management skills or understanding of current academic and research programs.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 16
      • The dean gives only passing attention to discussions of academic and research programs, and devotes little or no effort to either program development or the professional development of faculty.
      • The dean does not effectively advocate for college programs within the university.
      • The dean often does not insure viability of programs due to poor resource allocation deci-
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 8..................................... 10

        Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area. 22
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 8: Program Development
Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 8 (verbatim)
  1. 8.1  The dean seems to have a good sense of business, i.e. providing funds to help move things forward.
  2. 8.2  There has been a nice amount of professional development for graduate students, but not for faculty.
  3. 8.3  The College of Graduate Studies Dean is not responsible for new program development but Dean Komuniecki has been very supportive of the development of new programs and finding appropriate resources to support these programs.
  4. 8.4  Truly no idea, limited exposure due to the size of our program.
  5. 8.5  I believe that the Dean would do a better job if she had the resources to strategically plan and obtain the faculty that could support a robust research program. Teaching load has hindered the faculty’s ability to engage in a rigorous research agenda.
  6. 8.6  Development and sustainability of a selective group...SELECTIVE GROUP are the key words here. Support for a number of interdisciplinary certificates and inter-institutional programs demonstrated. While some of the certificates and relationships with other institutions seem innovative, and might lead to successful programs, there is not support or attention given for the development of any new solid core components of a well respected COGS. Dean seems somewhat insecure in supporting new programs all the way through the OBOR process. Her comments on new proposals and ideas are always first about OBOR barriers not on how we can get things done through OBOR and move forward. Fear of true innovation? Reactive not proactive.
  7. 8.7  through the years, the Dean has implemented several new programs aimed to increase the visibility of the graduate school at UT. She keeps innovating and incorporating new ideas in this area.
  8. 8.8  The dean undercuts program development by (a) remaining unaware of and uninvolved in programs she hasn’t chosen to be interested in, and (b) undercutting the process of developing programs with integrity.
  9. 8.9  There is a clear disconnect between what should be forthcoming out this office and the reality. The Dean should be there to support the graduate school, the faculty and the students. It is unclear why there is a college of graduate studies..there are no students, there are no classes etc. This office should provide a multitude of services but this not the case. Service to the students and faculty is in a steady decline.
  10. 8.10  Thanks to Dr. Martin Abraham, she has been continuing the same thing. She did not introduce any new activity, creativity, or development of the program.
  11. 8.11  Not aware of any influence on health science campus
  12. 8.12  She follows the concept of divide and conquer... She does not even care about research excel- lence. In fact, I believe that our undergraduate programs are operating at a higher level than the graduate school under her leadership.
  13. 8.13  The Dean is doing everything right in terms of program development. Look at the people who are running the smear campaign, they do absolutely nothing to help program development, and actually do much more to damage UT than her. It’s sickening behavior by disgusting people.
  14. 8.14  The Dean genuinely wants to see UT’s graduate programs improve - for the sake of the students, the faculty, and the community.
  15. 8.15  Three factors make it increasingly difficult to recruit the top applicants to our graduate pro- gram: 1. Budget cuts, eliminating GA lines. 2. Inability or refusal to increase GA stipends, combined with increases in student fees (not covered by the assistantship), leaving us at a
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 23 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 8: Program Development
significant disadvantage when it comes to competing with other institutions. 3. Budget deci- sions and disbursements come later and later in the year. This year, we did not receive our disbursement until the end of March. By that point, three of our top applicants had already received and accepted offers from other programs. If we don’t know how many GA lines we have to offer, we can’t make offers early enough to compete for top students.
  1. 8.16  This Dean does not promote appropriate professional development of graduate students, espe- cially on the HSC, where there is virtually none offered. Attempts to discuss this issue with the Dean have been ignored. This Dean is no advocate for UT graduate students in any sense of the word, either internally or externally. Our graduate program applicants with strong records have declined precipitously under her watch. She does not invite discussion with anyone as to how to improve this situation. Student exit surveys are not anonymous and are required as part of the degree audit. Surveys are not given to individual graduate programs. Therefore these are worthless to help improve conditions that students may have legitimate complaints about, although impressive to upper administration on the COGS Dean???s behalf.
  2. 8.17  Does not actively support growth or sustaining programs outside sciences.
  3. 8.18  She is clearly a builder but sometimes that includes identifying weak programs and asking and determining if they are worthy of continued investment. I think the way she reviewed the masters programs through a committee was impartial and well structured.
  4. 8.19  She does advocate for the graduate programs to central administration. I am not aware that she has promoted faculty professional development.
  5. 8.20  Once again, I have never received a communication from this Dean’s office or staff informing me about measures being taken to develop programs or staff. Seems to me that the viability of programs is being advocated at the level of assistant deans in the trenches, which then is received by Dean in an adversarial fashion.
  6. 8.21  Our programs continue to erode through lack of attention and graduate school support. Con- stant (and blatantly uneven) cuts have weakened the numbers in our programs and hence harmed enrollments in our upper level classes and forced us to rely more on part time lecturers.
  7. 8.22  I have limited knowledge of this but feel that she seeks experts at the university to assist her to encourage or evaluate new programs.
  8. 8.23  The dean has not shown a consistent interest in developing the academic and research programs in the biomedical sciences.
  9. 8.24  Does the job.
  10. 8.25  Most of the deans efforts seem geared towards STEM.
  11. 8.26  Strong evidence demonstrated by participation in grants, brought in the PSM program to UT, encourages global relationships, encourages new programs at UT. Annual address and reports to Graduate Council include information about the national trends. She shares information from a national organization called CGS that UT/COGS has a membership with.
  12. 8.27  Patsy’s idea of program development is limited to Ph.D. programs only. The thousands?? of students in Master’s programs apparently are not worth the effort.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 24 of 35
Area 9 Dean Komuniecki Problem Solving and Decision-Making
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent of the deans effectiveness in problem solving and decision-making, and her/his ability to anticipate problems.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 9 ............................................ 3.05
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 15
  • The dean anticipates problems and consults others so that problems are turned into oppor- tunities.
  • Faculty and staff recognize that the dean’s decisions are prudent, judicious, and in the best interest of students and faculty. The dean can be depended on to make decisions for self and others that create opportunities throughout the college.
    Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 18
    • When appropriate, the dean consistently consults others with relevant expertise to solve
      problems expediently.
    • The dean can be relied upon to use all available resources during the problem solving and decision-making process. Faculty and chairs look to the dean for guidance on resolving problems, conflicts, etc.
      Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 30
      • The dean effectively solves most problems within an expected time frame.
      • The dean usually makes decisions carefully and using an appropriate and ethical problem solving process. Consults others prior to making a decision and demonstrates good judge- ment when a decision is made.
        Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 13
        • The dean settles often for the first suggested solution, rather than exploring all possibilities.
        • The dean may demonstrate some understanding of the problem solving process, but does not consistently employ it. May seek advice from others prior to making a decision, but does so inconsistently. The dean needs coaching on making judicious decisions.
          Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 15
      • The dean is unable to find solutions to basic problems. Does not seek advice from others to
        find solutions to such problems.
      • The dean does not demonstrate an understanding of the decision-making and problem solving process at the college, department, or program level. Decisions appear to be imprudent and without proper assessment of the situation, circumstance, or opportunity.
        Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 9..................................... 20 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
        Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 9 (verbatim)
  1. 9.1  Very supportive and instrumental on increasing the graduate students scholarly travel funds.
  2. 9.2  Felt the handling of the Diversity Certificate concerns was responsive and responsible.
  3. 9.3  Again, provide the Dean with the resources needed and she would do an exceptional job!
  4. 9.4  Effective problem solving and decision making requires respect for and solicitation of diverse opinions, fostering open discussion so problems can be resolved, and ability to see and then admit that sometimes you make mistakes and others might have had a better idea. Dean does not have these basic problem solving skills
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 9: Problem Solving and Decision-Making
  1. 9.5  For example, the dean isn’t addressing basic problems of distribution of graduate assistantships and oversight of treatment of graduate students. I have not witnessed any attempt to discuss decision-making or to solve problems. Highly defensive of her territory.
  2. 9.6  This dean creatss more problems than she solves.
  3. 9.7  Many professors have copied thesis from one year to another year. She did not investigate these things.
  4. 9.8  very little effort toward consensus development
  5. 9.9  She creates problems.... how would we expect her to solve them?
  6. 9.10  The Dean is working honestly and openly. Others are being pressured to support the smear campaign - but that reflects more on the liars, back-stabbers and the bullies, than it actually does on the Dean. What an awful attack on the whole image of UT, not just the Dean. In a time when we should be working together, they will damage the whole university in the eyes of the public for the sake of their own personal agendas.
  7. 9.11  Deliberation about problems seems to be open and productive.
  8. 9.12  This Dean frequently ignores issues that make the work of individual colleges and departments harder. She constantly strives to transfer work to the colleges that should be done by COGS. Unless the solution to a problem benefits COGS, she is not interested in solutions, and will often ignore these problems. To my knowledge, she has never sought advice from anyone to arrive at a fair solution to any problem. She is very aware of administrative titles and will often ignore those with lesser titles than her own. Often, many of the colleges and departments are unaware of recent decisions by COGS to stop specific services until we try to accomplish something, only to be told that COGS no longer does this for our graduate students.
  9. 9.13  Seeks limited input. Moves her own agenda forward and puts energy into her agenda.
  10. 9.14  She is a problem solver and looks to move forward and not remain stagnant.
  11. 9.15  Again, I feel the Dean is a top-down style manager rather than a listener/facilitator and often is not inclusive of other ideas or solutions to problems. She does not always consult or respect others views.
  12. 9.16  I have witnessed her problem solving abilities with my college and find her open to input and suggestions from faculty.
  13. 9.17  The university is SLOW in making decisions. One thing that needs to be fixed is the faculty portal to graduate admissions. Student applications can be lost in cyber-space and the doc- uments are difficult to print, download or forward to your committee members. There is no notification when a new application is in your queue. Often you (and the candidate) do not know if the application is complete or missing something. We are losing students because of this clunky, outdated, difficult-to-use system.
  14. 9.18  A dodger.
  15. 9.19  Does the job.
  16. 9.20  Decisions appear to be made by the individual Dean and not by consensus. Decisions are inflexible and program needs are not taken into consideration. A flow chart (stepwise) or checklist of what needs to be done for each student coming in be they domestic or international would be extremely helpful. More and more is given to the program to address.
  17. 9.21  The Dean works with faculty and students to find the best solution for the best outcomes. She cares about the success of our students. I have personally witnessed several cases of working with faculty and students on committees in a manner that demonstrates creative leadership in a manner that fair and ethical.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 26 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 9: Problem Solving and Decision-Making
9.22 Dr. Komuniecki’s decisions are sometimes not prudent and many times injudicious. Faculty are often left to wonder whether decisions are made in the best interest of students, faculty, or Dr. Komuniecki.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 27 of 35
Area 10 Dean Komuniecki Planning & Organizing
When assigning degree ratings for your dean in this area, please consider the extent to which tasks, activities, outcomes and time must be prioritized, sequenced and scheduled.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 10 ........................................... 3.25
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 15 The dean balances multiple projects effectively.
The dean is recognized as an expert planner.
Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 25
  • The dean develops reasonable plans for multiple projects and effectively organizes time to
    complete them.
  • The dean works effectively with faculty, chairs, and staff to identify goals and to establish activity assignments, timeline, and intermediary assessment points for each task.
    Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 24
    • The dean effectively manages time and all elements of one project by providing project plans
      and status.
    • The dean effectively communicates the issues to be addressed, and sets reasonable goals, activities, and timeline for each task.
      Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 13
      • The dean attempts to plan and execute daily tasks, but struggles with setting and commu-
        nicating priorities. Requires intervention from others to redirect work to higher priorities.
      • The dean shows little or no ability to bring together a team to address a pressing issue.
        Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 10
    • The dean shows no ability to plan and execute daily tasks. Takes no initiative but waits to
      be assigned tasks from higher administrators (e.g., Provost).
    • The dean does not attempt to bring together a team to address a pressing issue.
      Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 10.................................... 24 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
      Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 10 (verbatim)
  1. 10.1  we still do not have by-laws!!!!!
  2. 10.2  No real exposure.
  3. 10.3  Given that under Jacobs/Scarborough planning and organization at the college level were almost impossible tasks. But Dean could have at least tried to pull a Team together to work on this with areas under her control like program review. It took GC two years to put a Program Review Committee in place this week and even as late as January of this year the Dean was pushing to limit faculty participation in the process.
  4. 10.4  I can’t speak to ability to plan and execute daily tasks, as that is not anything I observe. She is unsuccessful and ineffective in addressing pressing issues.
  5. 10.5  Poor.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 10: Planning & Organizing
  1. 10.6  i have not heard that she has brought together a team to address any issue. She puts herself on a pedestal.
  2. 10.7  A very discredited group of people with few achievements and a poor work ethic (and poor ethics in general) are always popping up behind things like this. The Dean has planned and organized everything very well - but the smear campaign against her seems to be planned by a group of disaffected people very well too. I’ve been wondering whether this whole survey is itself a planned, manufactured and dishonest plan to undermine her, and the College... as opposed to an honest examination of the College. The whole focus is intensely personal, not institutional.
  3. 10.8  She manages multiple priorities at the same time much more gracefully than I ever could.
  4. 10.9  The Dean refuses to update an outdated paper-based system for almost all aspects of required graduate student interactions with COGS. The Dean will not discuss this issue with any of the colleges or departments. More and more frequently, when a college or department on HSC needs her signature on a piece of paper, there is no one in the HSC office and the paper must be driven over to her office on the main campus because she refuses to sign faxed or scanned paperwork. She has frequently stated her doubts about continuing to staff the HSC office and is not concerned with the serious issues to the HSC if a COGS office Is not on HSC. She has stated that the entire HSC office will be moved to the main campus this summer. With 1/3 of all graduate students at UT in degree programs on the HSC (who must apply through COGS), this is a very serious issue.
  5. 10.10  She is very well organized and is forward thinking all the time.
  6. 10.11  It often takes too long to resolve an issue.
  7. 10.12  Consistently well prepared for meetings with detailed reports.
  8. 10.13  Merely sets up defenses. Is this program planning?
  9. 10.14  Does the job.
  10. 10.15  The dean is a highly effective person, but I would say that work with individual faculty and chairs has been scarce.
  11. 10.16  The flow of the workload to bring in new students and also to retain students needs to be clarified. Scheduling of employees on the HSC was not definitive and for the most part lacking. As of summer there will not be a presence on the HSC. Constant commuting between the campuses due to lack of electronic interactions is unacceptable.
  12. 10.17  I am not privy to the Dean’s work life to the extent I can answer this.
  13. 10.18  We do not have to plan ahead because the grad college office requires students to complete a form for every conceivable action or situation. Tough luck for HSC students who have to travel to the MC to simply submit each of those forms. Bureaucracy has replaced planning in the Graduate College office.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 29 of 35
Area 11 Dean Komuniecki Financial Management
When assigning degree ratings in this area, please consider the extent to which the dean is able to prepare and manage budgets, and be financially accountable to students, faculty, chairs, and the central administration.
Dean Komuniecki’s score in Area 11 ........................................... 3.28
The title page of this report provides context for this score.
Role Model .................................................. Number of responses: 14
The dean clearly stands out as a leader in financial management and financial accountabil- ity. The dean supports and advises chairs on development of departmental budgets and consistently secures resources necessary to meet those budgets.
Exceeds Expectations ......................................... Number of responses: 23
The dean demonstrates financial accountability. Effectively communicates how fiscal realities will impact department and program needs. Makes financial decisions in consultation with chairs, program directors, and faculty.
Meets Expectations ........................................... Number of responses: 19 The dean is adept at budget preparation and makes financial decisions in consultation with
chairs and program directors.
Needs Improvement .......................................... Number of responses: 10
The dean needs coaching to improve financial skills, but shows some ability in relating current fiscal conditions to department needs.
Unsuccessful ................................................... Number of responses: 10
The dean is able to prepare a budget but does not understand much information on the financial statements. Shows little or no ability in relating current fiscal conditions to depart- ment or program needs. The dean does not effectively consult with or inform chairs about budgetary issues. The dean will continue to be unsuccessful in this area unless coaching is provided.
Number of non-responses to options provided in Area 11.................................... 35 Unable to assess because of insufficient observation of dean’s performance in this area.
Written Comments on Dean Komuniecki’s Performance in Area 11 (verbatim)
  1. 11.1  Nice job
  2. 11.2  More graduate assistantships, with higher stipends, are needed. We’ve seen little progress on this.
  3. 11.3  In a time of serious budget shortfalls, Dean Komuniecki has done an outstanding job of lobbying for maintaining the COGS budget and for promoting cost savings for students by reducing the minimum full time hours from 12 to 9.
  4. 11.4  The provision of financial resources would allow the Dean to strategically plan and implement her plan. Most universities know what their allocation of GA’s is well in advance of inter- viewing, seems like we never know and therefore lose prospective graduate students to other universities.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 11: Financial Management
  1. 11.5  Dean has been able to maintain current levels of graduate student support in a hostile en- vironment. However while there may be some communication about resources with college deans there is none with chairs or program directors. Even this year’s tuition scholarships which the President gave COGS was allocated with no input from chairs or directors–except perhaps from those who were chosen centrally to receive the funds.
  2. 11.6  I am unable to speak to her ability to prepare a budget; however, she has no transparency about her budget or budgeting process, so I would assume she doesn’t feel very confident about it.
  3. 11.7  Coaching will not this problem. There are attitudes about position and responsibility that are not likely to changn.
  4. 11.8  Excellent. No problems at all. In a difficult financial time, with everyone facing more pressures, the Dean is doing the best job she can. She has done everything ethically and with utmost propriety. But this is not what the dishonest people behind this smear campaign will remind you.
  5. 11.9  Again, I am disappointed and frustrated by the combination of budget cuts, the lack of increases in GA stipends to keep UT competitive with other programs, and how late in the academic year departments are notified of their disbursements. As a result, we are not able to recruit as successfully as we want and need to.
  6. 11.10  This decision-making process is completely obscure to colleges and departments. Many college Deans have suffered cutbacks in graduate awards through COGS with insufficient explanations. Losses in COGS staff without budget cutbacks to COGS makes it unclear as to where all of the money is going. Backloading of student GA college accounts sometimes results in college overdraws when COGS does not give all of the $$ originally promised. This situation especially should be rectified.
  7. 11.11  Pushed ahead on limiting credit hours for fulltime students at a financial reduction to the grad- uate school. Reported we will probably get it back in future years with increased enrollment. Sacrificed finances for graduate school because “the university needs our help” referring to budget deficit. Guess she didn’t read the memos about administration bonuses and financial assets gaining for UT
  8. 11.12  She always tries to make the best of the limited budget that she is given. She was supportive of efforts to get outside funds where possible.
  9. 11.13  She seems to have financial required of complex budget issues, but could be more inclusive of programs in rendering decisions.
  10. 11.14  The lack of a guiding vision compromises the University’s need to make long term decisions regarding the growth and enhancement of our programs.
  11. 11.15  Consistently looking for funding opportunities and advocating for grad students to keep cur- rent funding opportunities.
  12. 11.16  With changes at the college level, I would like to know the Dean is mentoring new Assoc Deans to communicate information from the CGS and about graduate asst dollars and tuition information.
  13. 11.17  Does the job. However, I wish awarding of assistantships was more transparent and strategic for all colleges. Seems as though there are winners and losers and my college is not among the winners though we have one of the larger graduate programs. The awarding process is killing us and inhibiting our ability to recruit.
  14. 11.18  Dean Komuniecki should be commended for being a strong advocate for graduate research programs at UT and for her efforts to maintain necessary teaching assistantship support on the main campus during times of tight university budgets and considerable financial instability.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 31 of 35
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 11: Financial Management
  1. 11.19  I suppose although I think chairs and faculty are often not brought in the loop on financial decision making.
  2. 11.20  The budget once decided upon should be transferred to the college in bulk at the beginning of the fiscal year and not just scholarship monies each semester which are less than 10
  3. 11.21  My assessment is limited to student support and cost. I am not privy to how the Dean prepares and manages budgets. I am very much aware that COGS has a large budget. However, I am not privy to the whole picture of funding our student GA’s, scholarships and so on. I support her work and statements to keep the tuition steady so that we do not price our graduate programs out of the competitive market. I support her advocacy on behalf of students to get more money for graduate student support.
  4. 11.22  There is no financial accountability in the grad college office. None. Financial issues are not a concern if your college/department/program is favored by Dr. Komuniecki. If not favored, then you are out of luck.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 32 of 35
Area 12 Dean Komuniecki Comments on overall administrative performance
Faculty members were invited to provide comments on the overall administrative perforance of their dean. The following are the verbatim responses received from that invitation.
  1. 12.1  The dean appears more interested in her position rather than responsible stewardship of an important unit of the University.
  2. 12.2  Dean Komuniecki continues to do an outstanding job as the leader of the College of Graduate Studies.
  3. 12.3  The Dean is an excellent Ambassador for Graduate Studies and she works very hard, provide her with resources and flexibility to do her job and she would be fantastic and deliver results!
  4. 12.4  Patricia Komuniecki is an excellent Dean
  5. 12.5  The past 6-7 years have been a very tough environment for graduate education at UT. Dean is a good person and made some improvements in the office for grad students. She might have developed leadership skills with some support and mentoring. However she has been schooled in the ways of appeasement and fear and does not know any other way to operate. Graduate education at UT needs a leader with vision, an open mind, and both people and technical skills.
  6. 12.6  I think Dr. Komuniecki is an outstanding Dean that has devoted most of her career to the University of Toledo. She remains energizez and determined to imrpve the quality of our graduate education.
  7. 12.7  The Graduate College is clearly more organized, progressive and accountable since Dean Komuniecki arrived in this position than at any time that I have been here prior to when she took over. Things run more smoothly, information is received in a timely manner, and budgets are distributed in a logical fashion. Very strong administrator
  8. 12.8  Dr Kommuniecki has turned her back on graduate programs in the College of Medicine and Life Sciences. She is perfectly willing to claim the successes of these programs and their students as her own, but her outlook on them borders on hostility.
  9. 12.9  This dean must be replaced with someone dedicated and responsible in executive level.
  10. 12.10  Graduate education is the most important mission of our university. This positions needs a leader that is motivated to create and implement new programs in keeping with the con- tinuously changing research enterprise. Such position needs a visionary and a hard working leader that operates with an inclusive management style. Based on the history of her years of leadership, this dean is incapable of meeting any of the criteria of a good graduate dean. She has destroyed the graduate school already. How can we improve? Please terminate her immediately and bring someone at a higher caliber and talents. Someone that is inclusive and can appreciate a broad spectrum of research.
  11. 12.11  This whole survey is being pushed by a group of dishonest people who have been involved in smearing the Dean and harming UT while they push their own destructive personal agendas.
  12. 12.12  The time is long past due for an effective leader of our graduate office who will be an advocate for graduate studies and a fair and transparent administrator for our graduate population in all of the colleges and degree programs. UT cannot continue to be a university with a strong research base without a strong graduate Population in todays environment. We need an office that is able to recruit and retain top quality graduate students, and will be willing to undergo significant updates in administrative tasks that are currently completely outdated.
Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 12: Overall Comments
It is unclear why this Dean retains voting privileges on the Graduate Council and yet has abolished those privileges for all Associate Deans.
  1. 12.13  It is not acceptable that this Dean has been in place and not evaluated for multiple years. She favors the sciences and has little interest in colleges outside of sciences. She closes down input from others and is not receptive to others with differing ideas. Susan
  2. 12.14  I hope she stays in the position for a while as she has institutional knowledge, vision, and experience that will be very hard to replace.
  3. 12.15  When the Dean took the position in COGS, I had high hopes and initial favorable observations. However, over time I feel she has done a worse job and I have little remaining confidence.
  4. 12.16  I could not answer most of the questions, because although I am faculty of Graduate School however I do not know Dr. Komuniecki well enough to answer some questions
  5. 12.17  As was noted this instrument need to be tweaked to better assess the performance of a Dean who oversees the Graduate College, since the responsibilities of this position are quite different that that of the more traditional academic colleges.
  6. 12.18  My itnteraction with this dean is extremely limited and consequently my responses reflect a lack of transparency and interaction on her part. The graduate college may represent other programs more effectively (and this is my impression), but it has shown little energy nor interest in supporting the programs within the LLSS college.
  7. 12.19  She runs the college as if she were a dictator. Many examples exist of favoritism towards some programs, but if mentioned by name one can certainly expect retribution. Complaints abound on campus of having to support this college, which individual colleges could run more efficiently and at a lower cost. Is this a boondoggle?
  8. 12.20  As a faculty I have not had much interaction with the dean and am not able to objectively assess her role and abilities
  9. 12.21  I would have liked to given more valuable information but did not have any experiences or interactions to base my assessment on
  10. 12.22  I enjoy working with Dean Komuniecki. I think that she is doing a really good job and is very professional. I also think that some of the questions on this evaluation do not pertain to her, but to college deans.
  11. 12.23  We need a creative leader not a turf-defending bureaucrat.
  12. 12.24  The Dean is clearly passionate about graduate programs at UT, and I hope she stays on for several more years as Dean of our COGS!
  13. 12.25  Thank you for your service. This cannot be an easy job!
  14. 12.26  The dean is a highly professional and energetic person and has done a great deal to improve the university at the graduate level. However, my experience does not indicate a great deal of interaction with faculty or chairs, this may be a non-stem response, or it may be a not so unusual aspect of graduate deans.
  15. 12.27  The following are problems: a checklist should be provided to each college (program) to ensure that the graduate student is properly brought on board lack of an orientation is problematic on several fronts the staff of COGS is overburdened and further resources should be provided or reallocated to resolve issues loss of a COGS infrastructure on the HSC is creating more workload for programs, directors and associate deans. There has never been a reasonable explanation given for pulling resources from the HSC. The budget is a big issue in regards to the lack of it for the majority of the year. More orientation on dealing with bringing in international students would be greatly appreciated The associate deans meetings should be used for consensus building. It is confusing why 3M was taken out of the COGS budget and then 1M was then used for incentive for MS programs. Most likely that has nothing to do
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 34 of 35

Evaluation of Dean Komuniecki Area 12: Overall Comments
with the COGS Dean, but a rationale would be helpful to share. HR issues are overwhelming without an HR contact person. loss of HSC dedicated person has lead to much more work in bringing new students on board this year.
  1. 12.28  As a faculty member/administrator on the Health Science Campus I have witnessed behaviors from others on the health science campus trying to what I believe to be undermining efforts that Dr. Komuniecki has tried to implement to further harmonize the two campuses. It is unfortunate that one of those individuals has a position high enough in the UT administrative structure that it seems to be influencing the highest level administrators. I would also like to address that fact that this particular survey is not suitable for the position Dr. Komuniecki holds. I wonder if there was not just such a push for Dr. Komuniecki to be evaluated from some on main campus and health science campus that it was done with haste by utilizing a tool that is geared toward Deans of colleges that oversee/have responsibility for faculty
  2. 12.29  I strongly support Dean Komuneicki. I strongly support the harmonization of the HSC and MC in terms of all aspects of our university since merger. It is great to have the mix of programs and facilities on the HSC and MC. Together we are better than apart. I know that there are several pockets of faculty and staff on MC and HSC that would prefer the MUOT and UT merger of 2006 never happened. As such, they are often resistant to the some changes required to operate under continued tight financial resources. I am always disappointed when the talk is negative about change and turns to blame. Dean Komuneicki works hard to lead and advocate for our graduate students and programs. I believe she has been successful and strong during the post merger transitions.
  3. 12.30  It appears that Dean Komuniecki has lost sight of what her job is actually about. It is not about the Graduate College but instead it is about graduate students. It is not about her being able to control everything but instead it is about building world-class graduate programs. It also appears that Dean Komuniecki has forgotten that the work of our graduate students is the intellectual legacy of this university. I take no pleasure in saying that we need a new Graduate Dean.
UT Faculty Senate Executive Committee Page 35 of 35 


Anonymous said...

I'll admit I haven't dissected each of these evaluations, but it seems to me there is very little consensus. Each dean has her supporters and her critics. Some love them, some hate them. The comments all but contradict each other. She is a great communicator. She doesn't communicate well. Reading these, I often wonder if they are even talking about the same person.

In my mind, these evaluations are just about worthless.

Anonymous said...

I believe the evaluations are just fine, it's the deans that are just about worthless.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:00 AM

Really? Did you ever think about what these people do and the position they are in? There are finite resources and most Dean find themselves in a situation of having to allocate those limited resources to quench a near infinite appetite on behalf of their departments. It stands to reason that some will win while others will loose. Given finite resources it is impossible to please everyone.

Further, they have often found themselves stuck in the middle between a malevolent administration and the faculty which they serve.

I can't help but wonder if some faculty would be better served by looking at the Deans as their partners not as they enemy.

I'm in NSM, and A+S before that. My memory goes back to the days when Al Cave was Dean. In that time I've had roughly ten deans. I might not have agreed with all of them all of the time, but most have been hard working, dedicated individuals. I'll admit there was one tyrant, and one incompetent train-wreck, but they were the exceptions.

So no Anon 7:00 AM, they not "just about worthless".

Anonymous said...

When will the deans learn to treat faculty as their partners in the academic mission, meaning they practice full disclosure and they support faculty and stand up for our disciplines and for our students. A lot of our deans are self-employed...they look out for their own interests only.

Anonymous said...

I agree most deans are hard working. Most try hard and mean well. But, some are, indeed, train wrecks. Poplin Gosetti is a train wreck.

Anonymous said...

I find these posted evaluations tedious and the comments quite boring. Want some cheese with that whine?

Anonymous said...

The posted evaluations demonstrate that the UT deans are in the main "mixed bags." Their evaluations reveal that the role of these deans, in relation to their faculties, fell somewhere between pernicious (maleficent) and scabiferous (vividly self-explanatory). The worst of these pestiferous carbuncles should be removed ASAP. It seems that our recent surgeon-jefe had the skills and opportunity to remove them -- but instead encouraged them to proliferate. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Faculty and Staff of the Judith Herb College of Education:

As some of you may have heard, I will be stepping down as Dean of the Judith Herb College of Education when my contract expires on September 1. I have decided to take a break from administration, having served in many positions at the University over the past 14 years.

While I have continued my role as a faculty member during these years through chairing dissertations, serving on dissertation committees, and participating in a doctoral leadership academy, some opportunities have arisen in my home program that are too enticing to pass up. The program continues to expand its offerings through a new doctoral cohort at Schoolcraft College and new on-line professional master’s program. There is need for an additional faculty member, one who can immediately step into the role of teaching advanced courses and serving as dissertation chair. Additionally, the program continues to expand its focus on global educational leadership with opportunities for developing joint international programs, research, and leadership development, all areas of research interest for me.

For these reasons, I have decided not to seek renewal of my contract as Dean. Provost Barrett will be reaching out to you next week about next steps.

I wish the best for the College and its outstanding faculty, staff, and students.


Penny Poplin Gosetti
Dean, Judith Herb College of Education
Office: 419.530.5402
Fax: 419.530.7719

Anonymous said...

Totally off topic, but I guess we (UT employees) are free to do whatever we want without fear of reprimand, discipline, or termination.

When one of the highest paid, highest profile employees is caught on video violating the First Amendment to the Constitution and gets away with it without as much a reprimand how can UT logically justify ever reprimanding anyone ever again?

Oh that's right. Rules and now apparently the Constitution doesn't apply to athletics. I submit to you that anyone else bringing that much negative press attention to UT, not to mention violating the First Amendment, would have been terminated or at least forced to publicly apologize and placed in some sort of remediation program.

There's only one of the two explanations for his actions: ignorance or arrogance.

Coach Campbell should have been fired. Period.

Anonymous said...

Sure,let's talk about negative publicity.

How about that great group of collegial faculty members in the doctoral clinical psychology program that we learned so much about a couple of years ago in The Blade and that put the program's accreditation at risk?

How many faculty members lost their jobs because of that dumpster fire?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:49:

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a major difference between a dysfunctional department and a deliberate violation of the First Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Was informed today by Carlson Library of a new OhioLink policy that states retired faculty members cannot order books from OhioLink without a letter from the current department chairperson stating that said emeritus faculty member is engaged in research beneficial to the university. Does anyone know about this policy change?

Anonymous said...

It is not a new OhioLink policy, UT and OSU were allowing a large number of users access to OhioLink who were not paid staff or faculty or currently enrolled students - OhioLink policy only allows for those users - with rare permitted exceptions. UT just signed a new contract with OhioLink who is insisting their policy be enforced. And Department chairs where notified of this change several months ago.

Anonymous said...

Also, why are we paying the football coach so much if he thinks the team's success ultimately lies in the hands of some magical fellow from the clouds?

Anonymous said...

How do you know they were praying for a win, perhaps they were praying for the health and safety of the players??

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:24 PM, If he relies on a magical intervention from some fellow in the clouds to keep his players safe then he should be fired immediately. I'd rather see him researching the best pads and helmets to protect his players than praying.

However you slice there is no room state-led prayer. Period.

He violated the Constitutional rights of his players (even if they are too ignorant to know it). He should have been terminated.

Anonymous said...

My point was not that he relied on it, but that for all you know they were praying for their health and safety, which is common in many sports. In reference to your earlier post I doubt they were praying for help to win. As to the Constitutional issues I doubt such a violation rises to the level of termination, if it was deemed wrong, fine and he said he would no longer do so. Frankly there are much more serious issues on campus, including those that violate the rights of students. Seems like you are much more annoyed at his salary then his actions and simply looking for a reason have him fired.

Anonymous said...

For those emeritus faculty who are having problems with gaining access to Ohio Link under the new policy cited by Administrator Anonymous above , please be advised that Lourdes College will extend borrowing privileges to us for the modest fee of $10 per year . That includes Ohio Link book borrowing ', but not access to its data bases. Having found dealing with Carlson this past few months extremely difficult , I will take advantage of the kindness of the good sisters .
Those of us who are Michigan graduates can also obtain servtce there for a small fee . It is also now possible to buy private access to J Store , but I believe that is more expensive .
I do wonder why the University's statement of restriction of Emeriti borrowing was not sent directly to faculty . Seems strange to have to learn this from an anonymous blog.
One thing has been made very clear by that blog ----those of us who are not on payroll anymore are not considered to be members of the University's faculty community . Very sad .I spent most of my career here .

Anonymous said...

If you are a resident of Ohio, you can obtain a free library card from the State Library of Ohio, which includes OhioLink borrowing privileges. You can request that they be delivered to any OhioLink library (including Carlson) for no charge.

Anonymous said...

Our chair told us about this change months ago and that chair was to contact Emeriti so they were aware. I am not so sure UT keeps records and emails of retired faculty. So should not have been a surprise nor need learn from this blog. Ask your chair. Again this is not UT policy but OhioLink policy.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:09

He did violate students' rights. I don't care what his salary is, but as a high ranking official at a public university he should know that leading students in prayer is violating their Constitutional rights.

What do you think would happen to Lecturer or a non-tenured professor who lead her class in prayer before an exam?

I'm sick and tired of the scared cow status given to Athletics and the arrogance expressed by *SOME* Christians.

Anonymous said...

Any thoughts about Obama's change to the overtime rules? Seems like this'll make a lot of postdocs and adjuncts eligible for overtime. Who really works just 40 hours a week?