Search This Blog

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Superfluous Deans

A boatload of superfluous deans attempts to enter the West, hoping to obtain lifetime positions in the endless bureaucracy of Western universities. No need to do a national search: they come looking for the good life.

72 comments:

Anonymous said...


If members of the UT Professional Staff Association ever needed an example of the underclass status they enjoy in higher education—disposable employees who have little or no basic job projection or support—they need look no further than 140 miles to the east to the Ohio Polytechnic Agricultural, Technical and Industrial State University and Institute—dba as University of Akron.

Earlier this year, OPATISUI, pleading poverty, threw more than 200 presumably loyal, committed employees under the bus, part of a $60 million cost-cutting effort.

Now—viola!—money has magically been found to hire 55 new faculty members.

What a classist, prejudicial, divisive way to run a university!

With UT now facing an $11.5 million budget shortfall as a result of still another enrollment decline, the new president says she wants first to speak to the Faculty Senate, that hard-working body does such a superb job of posting its meeting minutes in such as timely fashion, presumably to get some ideas.

Hmm...

I guess the new president is too busy to meet with the PSA. Doesn’t the staff have the right to be offered participation in discussions that directly relate to their futures at UT?

William Gladstone, the 19th-century British prime minister, once said that the first requisite of the job is to be a good butcher.

Gladstone’s maxim also holds true for university presidents.

So suit up your armor, PSA. Long knives are being sharpened. You are the easiest targets for the third-floor U. Hall crowd to make cuts.

Anonymous said...

There will almost certainly be cuts coming to UT. Why any ongoing personnel searches are being allowed to move forward is odd given the situation. There needs to be some restructuring to reduce administrative costs and to push some faculty who hold administrative jobs back to the class.

Zeke Zyzzex said...

All UT personnel cuts from here on out should be alphabetical.

Anonymous said...

In looking at the UT HR website, IHE and the Chronicle I am seeing under 20 faculty jobs currently open (some may already be in the interview stage), and only a few academic administrative positions campus wide, so appears the number of ongoing personnel searches is not extensive especially considering UT has 6,000+ employees and likely dozens of open positions at any time. Perhaps a hiring freeze may be on the horizon, but a $11 million mid FY deficit against a $600 million academic annual budget could be addressed by a 2% cut across the board. Also appears that the College of Medicine has already received the first payment from Promedia in the order of $20 million so at least their financial situation looks solid and they are no longer a drain on the main campus academic finances. Yes more administrative trimming needs to occur but doubt that will involve more than a handful of positions with small number of faculty heading back to departments with more than a few faculty gaps to be filled.

Anonymous said...

You can't fix the University of Toledo economy on the expense side of the ledger, unless you close programs. The cost of instruction (including faculty compensation) is the single largest expense category in the budget. Financial health will only come from increased revenue. That means figuring out how to offer degree programs that will attract students, you know, paying customers! Faculty should quit kvetching about the academic management structure, number of deans, Jacobs and Scarborough, etc., and get to work making the academic program portfolio more attractive.

Anonymous said...

You most certainly can fix UT's economy on the expense side of the ledger: we don't need a boatload of deans and associate deans. We don't a boatload of VPs and associate provosts. We do need faculty and staff who interact daily with students and who enhance academic programs.We don't need administrators who retire one day and come back the next, some at 100% of their "pre-retirement" salary or even 60% of their salary.

Anonymous said...

It will take much more then eliminating VP, Dean and Assc Dean positions to tackle a $11 million mid FY deficit. For example lets say four less VPs plus four less Deans and four less Assc Deans. Total annual savings (salary and benefits) could be as high as say $2 million(keeping in mind some of the VPs and all of the Deans/Assc Deans would return to departments as high paid faculty). Yes UT needs to tackle the expense side and address administrative bloat but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that alone it is a solution or major expense saving.

Anonymous said...

That is very true in re cutting the budget by just relying on administrative bloat. Some other steps have recently been taken. For instance, some low enrollment graduate programs have already been closed in LLSS. It is highly unlikely that they will be restarted. The remaining faculty involved in those programs have been reassigned to more productive tasks (undergraduate education). I expect that some additional steps will occur on this front because undergraduate only departments should be on higher teaching loads. This will cut the need for faculty hiring.

Anonymous said...

C'mon people, own up to the fact that our academic programs aren't attracting enough students. You can't blame the Admissions Office when you aren't giving them an attractive product to sell. The onus for low enrollment starts with the faculty who design the program offerings. Enrollment is driven by distinction and distinctiveness. The former derives from the accomplishments of faculty, staff, students, and alumni; the latter, from programmatic differentiation from the competition. Neither derive from senior management.

Anonymous said...

That is a bunch of B.S! Senior management is responsible for providing the resources to make programs attractive. You cannot maintain accreditation from an external organization when the university's administration fails to provide the clear set of faculty requirements and program resources set forth in the accreditation guidelines. At least one program in LLSS lost their accreditation for this reason and it has subsequently shut down. You cannot blame faculty for things that they don't control. You can't even blame a dean. These problems sit at the presidential and provost level.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard if the History Department's graduate program will remain open. The doctoral program appears to be on life support right now.

Anonymous said...

Yes we can place blame on the Admissions Office when recruiters know very little about our programs (some are not even aware of our colleges and departments) and end up talking to high school students and parents only about medicine, engineering and the sciences. I know this to be a fact as a parent I have attended high school college recruitment events and listened to the UT recruiters. Wake up people the majority of high schools either are not interested, academically prepared or motivated for STEM degrees (many start there but end up in other colleges after a few years at UT), same can be said for higher ed across the country. And yes good non-STEM students can graduate from UT with great career opportunities, I know many of them. Plus UT marketing focused on sports, the campus, and UTMC while completely disregarding the many excellent faculty and students across our many excellent programs. Many of the college are provided little or no assistance, staff or budget for recruitment, we can not even get help in updating our recruitment materials or updating websites. The new President understands all these issues and that you can not build UT only upon STEM but we need to do a much better job promoting ourselves with focus on student success and academic excellence. By not replacing faculty and failing to support good programs UT has instead over the last decade started to kill off many attractive degrees for many students or making if very difficult for students to complete degrees.

Anonymous said...

In the 'new contract, good or bad' discussion, here's my contribution, now that the actual figures are showing up in pay stubs and the open enrollment info on our contributions are available. Using Medical Mutual CDHP, 9mo tenure track, the cheapest available. Previously, my contribution each paycheck was $19 and change, with 0 for vision and dental. Now its about $56, which includes new contributions for vision and dental. The pay raise is bringing me about $130 more each paycheck, so it looks to be that I'll be receiving about $148 a month extra each month ($74 each paycheck) after subtracting the increase in health/vision/dental costs. My initial impulse was to yell "whoopee" but I didn't. I did vote "no" on the new contract by the way, because I felt that the university had delayed the new contract so that we would all feel desperate. I also felt that the new increases in health care costs would disproportionally impact the people at UT with the lowest salaries, but I don't know what lecturers, for example make, and how much the new health care contributions will reduce their actual "raises." I have a suspicion that there are employees at UT who will see no meaningful increase in their salaries. I've also noticed that if I wanted to stick it to UT, I could switch back to Paramount and cause UT to have to contribute more to my Health Care plan now than before the new contract.

Anonymous said...


What's the problem. Stick it to UT.

Anonymous said...

What happens to superfluous deans?
http://www.thedevilstrip.com/home/blog-attention-to-detail-and-public-accountability/

Anonymous said...


Does anyone know if the new president has met with the Faculty Senate to get its ideas on how to deal with the $11 million budget deficit that UT is facing?

The minutes of the Faculty Senate are so hopelessly tardy and out out of date that it's hard know why that group even exists.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if she has met with faculty or not but I was not real thrilled to see a $750,000 contract given to some space planning consultant given the budget situation. That would have closed 6.8% of the deficit by itself. If this is mandated by the state or the board, UT has a campus loaded with engineers and it has a planning program. Use the resources that you have rather than run for a consultant.

Anonymous said...


Let's not forget that another high-priced consultant is being used to try to remedy UT's chronic enrollment problems.

Anonymous said...

Not to mention the new position of Clery Act Compliance Officer, Meredith Blaine

Anonymous said...

Here is something to be proud of... We have the highest ranking of Ohio schools in the Social Mobility of the students we serve. The University of Toledo is Rank 107. You can sort the list by state.

http://socialmobilityindex.org/

Anonymous said...


Here's a ranking not to be proud of: 629 in Forbes Magazine rankings of U.S universities and colleges.

Time to get to work, folks.

Anonymous said...

Back of the envelope calculation:

Enrollment consultant cost $750,000. Let's add another $250,000 to the price for travel and rounding errors. So the consultant will cost one million dollars. Sounds like a lot, but is it? Let's investigate.

In round numbers a student generates $10,000 in tuition and fees, plus perhaps another $2,500 in state subsidy. So let's round down to $12,000 per student/per year.

Let's assume that becasue of less than perfect retention, the average student is with us for three years. (Granted that is a bit optimnistic, but if we work together we can achieve that).

So for each recruited student UT gains $36,000 ($12,000 per student multiplied by 3 years).

So to recoup the one million dollars invested in the consultatnt, he will need to generate an addition net increase of 1,000,000/36,000 or 28 students.

I think that is easily within reach. It seems to me that if you look past sensational headlines and look at the data objectively it was a wise decision.

Even a one percent increase in enrollment would generate about 180 additional students or nearly 6.5 million dollars over the course of three years. That is greater than a 6 to 1 rate of return.

Clearly the reasonable upside for out weighs the downside risk.



Anonymous said...

one problem with your math is that the enrollment consultant Ruffalo Noel Levitz is not being paid $750,000 but $431,000.

And 629 out of total of 7,200 four and two year post secondary institutions in the US puts UT in the top 10%

Anonymous said...

Except that our talented faculty could it for free, and better. That is what we get paid for.

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you how to increase enrollment for free.

Stop accepting students with 15, 16 and 17 ACT scores. Although you do get a student increase, these students have a poor chance of remaining in school, and the hit UT takes from its poor national rating ends up costing the University thousands of well-prepared students who won't consider Toledo.

Is a crappy 18 ACT score too much to ask?

Anonymous said...

How about lower tuition by the amount earmarked for consultants and let that mysterious thing called the market attract the students?

Anonymous said...


The furnished home “creates an environment for fund-raising and elevates the stature of the university,” said Brenda Lee, foundation president.
--The Blade, Oct. 17, 2015

For the UT Foundation to assert that the opulence of the president's house somehow improves the status and reputation of the university is one of the silliest statements I've ever heard.

If that were true, why didn’t the foundation really work to create an imperial lifestyle for the new president by hiring a French chef, butlers and maids for the new house? Or build an indoor swimming pool and some handball courts? How about a waterfall and pond in the back yard nestled among the shade trees?

Wouldn’t heavy-hitter UT donors love to drink some wine in Waterford Curraghmore crystal--$200 a glass--before sitting down to the main courses of Alaskan black cod and salmon, followed by Muscovy duck breast, then roasted rack of Colorado lamb. Make sure the waiters are wearing tuxedos.

C’mon, folks. The only way that UT is going to elevate its national reputation is though the hard work and success of faculty, staff and students. The foundation must always maintain fidelity to other people’s money and always keep the needs of those three groups in the forefront.

In the end, substance always trumps style, glitz and flash.

Anonymous said...


Has a provost search committee been named? What about a new search committee for the vice president for finance?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous back of the envelope: now let's take full time faculty on the main campus...lets divide $1 million by the number of full time faculty (or better yet full time faculty who teach undergraduates on the main campus) and let's give the money to them as a negotiated bonus in exchange for increased enrollment year 1 to be made permanent part of base if it materializes year 2. Faculty who wish to abstain may do so, publicly. Maybe this is not perfect reasoning, but it is sure better than giving the money to a consultant-company whose sole emphasis is going to be on admissions issues. If enrollment increase was easy enough for a formula and a consultant and a cost benefit ratio of 28 students, would not every university pay for it? Oh, you are right, if every university paid $1 million dollars for 28 more students...they would have to go overseas, or drop admission standards, which open admission places do not have to begin with. Let's go overseas.

Anonymous said...

The 750k contract was to a "space consultant", SmithGroupJJR. Not enrollment. That is a different 18 month contract for $431k with Ruffalo Noel Levitz.

Anonymous said...

Faculty? Faculty? Let me tell you about the faculty. Let me tell what I've learned about our faculty from being on this campus for decades.

The overwhelming majority are brilliant people who know their fields and genuinely care for their students. The vast majority are hard workers. Too many of them are too focused on their own research, or their own little fifdoms to see the big picture or let alone care about it or do anything to advance it. Most faculty barely know what is happening in their departments, yet alone their college or God forbid the entire University (unless of course it negatively impacts the above mentioned research or fifdom). Maybe this is the price to pay for excellence in scholarship, I don't know. I hope not.

In my department, for example: ten percent of the faculty account for ninety percent of the community outreach, undergraduate recruitment, and contributions to the "culture" of the department.

News flash: High school students don't read journal articles. Excellence in scholarship and teaching will not increase enrollment alone. You need to promote yourself, your department, your college and your university. That means boots on the ground. Go to high schools, invite students to your department, have open houses, give tours, reach out to high schools. I see some amazing faculty memebers doing that, sadly they are a very small miniority.

Recruitment and retention need all of us working together. From faculty, to staff, to administation, to alumni, to community members, and yes even consultants.

And regarding ACT scores. Read the damn Mission Statement. We are METROPOLIATAN University. That means serving the needs of our community. Sadly our community is not the most educated and talented. Instead of bitching about the quality of our incoming students, and trying to exlude them, why don't we work with OUR community and improve their educational attainemnt in high school and at the University?

The only thing UT has more of than talent is negativity.



Anonymous said...

President and Provost meeting with LLSS faculty on October 30th to discuss merger with Communication and Arts

Anonymous said...

would you like your merger with a side of fries and an ice cold COCA-cola?

Anonymous said...

Only cost savings (if that is the only intent for merger) would be one Assc Dean position, as very likely a director for a School of the Arts is a likely outcome of any such merger so as to maintain and foster the alumni and donor support for the Arts that has been underway since the A+&S split. One has to ask how would students benefit as they are the ones we all should be thinking of when we consider college structures and whether recruitment, retention and graduation rates (and the associated revenue monies from state and tuition) would be improved as the overall cost savings with a merger are minimum in reference to the UT academic budget.

Anonymous said...

This should not be the only restructuring move. The social justice and human services college should be shut down and its programs sent to other units. If done, that would likely bring criminal justice and social work to the new Humanities and Social Sciences college. Other programs would go to Education.

Students would benefit by making them learn useful skills in our multicultural society...such as "foreign" languages.

Anonymous said...


From the University Council website: “Following the August 17, 2015 Board of Trustee Committee meetings, the Office of the President has notified the UT community that University Council will no longer exist.”

Did I miss the e-mail from the President’s Office concerning this decision about a governing structure?

Was there an e-mail?

Was there an article in UT News about this?

So much for real shared governance, participation and transparency at UT; for the values of collaboration and consensus; and for the idea that UT non-teaching staff should have a voice in issues related to the university and that opinions of all members of the university matter and are valued by the administration.

Perhaps the time has come for the Professional Staff Association to explore whether their interests would be better served through collective bargaining. I have no doubt there would be plenty of unions ready to talk to the staff.

Anonymous said...

To 9:03 am:

How about saving a dean's salary, preferably the one who just got a $10,000 raise? The same one who helped to split A&S in the first place on the dubious argument that smaller colleges would be better able to promote their programs? How much enrollment have we seen in LLSS? in Coca? Remember, CVPA had to siphon off Communications since they weren't generating increased enrollment on their own. I say, merge the two and get a new dean. The current deans have not lived up to their promises.

Anonymous said...

I agree,it's time that PSA did consider collective bargaining. It's clear that this group is vulnerable to heavy-handed administrators who expect their directives to be enacted immediately with no questions asked. PSA does the heavy lifting and VPs and other administrators don't bother to ask for input from the people who truly know what goes on in this institution.

Anonymous said...

My recommendation for PSA is to stop voting for Republican leaders who continue to disembowel anything public, especially public education,....as I know so many of you do....

Anonymous said...

I'm a yellow-dog democrat, neo-socialist, pro-labor PSA member. I can't help but chuckle at the notion of PSA organizing in an attempt to fight the bad old administration. We've all seen how effective AAUP, CWA, and the other unions have been.

In case you missed it. Jacobs and Scarborough are gone. This new administration deserves the benefit of the dobut for now and our support.

Again, the negativity here is overwhelming.

Anonymous said...

https://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2015/09/30/task-force-on-efficiency-and-affordability-on-higher-education/

Anonymous said...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/11/the-end-of-classical-music/

The subject is music but easily applies to public education

Anonymous said...

As to the Deans, I have been at UT for over twenty years and faculty who complain about the current Deans have done the same about every Dean they ever had. It may be a personal vendetta they have against the current Deans due to their roles in the break up of A&S, but rest assured that before long they will be complaining about the next Dean.

Bloggie said...

Bloggie believes that it was H.D. Mencken who said that the dean stands in relationship to the faculty as does a fire hydrant in relationship to a dog.

But I am reasonably sure that Mencken never met the like of some of our deans.

Anonymous said...

Louis

Henry Louis Mencken.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the whining faculty want deans to function as union bosses.

Bloggie said...

To Anonymous 12:55:

Bloggie thanks you for the correction.

Anonymous said...

The faculty want deans to care about academics more than about their contract extensions and raises.

Anonymous said...

Day in and day out I read about these vile, self-serving, corrupt, deans who are destroying UT and western civilization. Yet I seldom read who they are or what they have done (or not done). Surely it can't be each and every dean? I know my dean is awesome; the best dean I've served under in over 30 years.

The way this blog uses the word "deans" reminds me of how Fox News use the word "liberals".

If the deans (some or all) are the epitome of academic evil then name names, give examples of their crimes against humanity, cite sources, bring forth first hand accounts of their crimes.

All I see here is a lot of inunendo and people fighting old battles over and over.

Anonymous said...


After watching the faculty bicker and squabble for the past five years about what college structure is most appropriate to house a course entitled “Perspectives and Analysis Of 14th Century French Ballet,” I hope that UT News has a photographer posted outside the room on Oct. 30 when the president and provost are set to have a merger discussion with members of LLSS and the College of Communication and the Arts. It’s vitally important to capture the historic moment when the president emerges brandishing a piece of paper in her hand and declaring “peace in our time.”

Oops. Wrong quote.

Better for her to cite Columbia University political scientist Wallace Sayre. Sayre’s Law holds, “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue—that is why academic politics are so bitter.”

Anonymous said...

Again, the faculty complaining about Deans are always complaining about a Dean regardless of whom that person is at any given time, mostly because a Dean has power and authority over them and their department in terms of resources, and the Dean makes more money than the faculty member. Plus since in recent years Deans have come out of the regular faculty, they take with them personal and professional conflicts with certain faculty in their departments or colleges.

And correction, the meeting of the President and Provist with COCA is actually Oct 23rd and separate from the meeting with CLLSS on Oct 30th

Anonymous said...

The fact remains that our deans tend to be failed, jumped-up academics who then became failed deans. Rationalize all you want.

Anonymous said...

Whether they are failed, jumped up academics is not the issue. How have they performed as Deans is the only relevant question and their recent evaluations as completed by faculty were not overly negative, keeping in mind the administration which they were forced to work under, that failed to give the support and resources, and often initiated changes without consultation of the Deans or college faculty.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:32:

Wrong. Some of our deans are distinguished professors who are the top of their fields in research while being loved as instructors and advisors.

By what standard do you claim that they are failed academics?

I can think of one dean who fits your description and she's thankfully moved on to Akron.

Anonymous said...

I will grant you that some deans are effective. I would say that Dean Bjorkman is an example of a dean respected by her faculty and a dean who advocates for her college.

I cannot comment on the competence of Nagi or Early, but I have seen them advocate for their colleges.

Deans Barlowe and Davis? Let's just say their colleges have not made the leaps and bounds promised by the 2010 reorg. I see them advocating to keep the status quo, because otherwise they would have to admit that the LLSS and COCA structures have not delivered on the promise that smaller would mean better visibility and hence more enrollment. Former Dean Poplin-Gossetti? Gutteridge? Enough said.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and let's not forget former Dean Gaspar! The College of Nursing will rise again, but they are doing lots of cleanup up after him!

Anonymous said...

Deans are spamming the Blog hoping to keep their jobs. Desperate hours!

Anonymous said...

Annon 1:32: You're a frreaking idiot.

Others: Has it dawned on you that LLSS and COCA may not have thrived since the re-structuring because Jacobs and Company starved them of resources?



Anonymous said...


Hey folks. What the hell happened in 2006? UT also has a college of medicine and life sciences.

Chris Cooper is solid.

Anonymous said...

College of Medicine has been flush with cash and complete support from the previous administration since 2006, CLLSS and COCA had Deans appointed and controlled by the Provost and President, and insufficient budgets and resources to support their programs and not support for recruitment and marketing, within those colleges a number of staff positions were eliminated, and compared to other colleges the percentage of replacement faculty hired has been much smaller, some CLLSS and COCA departments are half the size they were ten years ago. You can attempt to place all the blame on the Deans (even though their recent reviews by faculty show evidence of support) but the reality is that LJ and SS did not give a damn about those colleges and programs, frequently undermined the Deans, introduced programs and initiatives with no consideration of the deans and faculty in those colleges.

And it is funny that some posters actually believe the Deans are posting here, while failing to even consider that some CLLSS and COCA faculty actually support the current college structure (over half of responds to recent COCA survey regarding future of COCA support current arrangement) and many actually feel their Deans are doing a good job, again look at their faculty reviews posted here for evidence of support.

Anonymous said...

The President and Provost met with COCA faculty today, it would be helpful if any of the regular A&S blog posters from that college (and there are some here) could provide a report of how the meeting went in terms of general tone, questions and issues raised and responses/feedback from administrators as to the pros vs cons of a CLLSS/COCA merger. Thanks.

Bloggie said...

To 11:08: Bloggie's agent attended the COCA event and reported as follows. President Gaber handled herself quite well. Down to earth. personable, rational. The arts faculty treated the event as group therapy and gushed on (and on) about the lovely deans and the lovely college and so forth. COMM faculty were silent, and not in a way that seemed to indicate assent. It seems reorganization cometh,next year, likely, the exact organizational forms as yet unknown President Gaber seemed amenable to less deans, bigger college units and perhaps schools underneath a considerably larger overarching college, e.g, a she perception in the community and the BOT is one too many deans and bureaucrats and VPs. Bloggie says, Go Gaber.! The agent reminded Bloggie of the Hoover Institute study (neoliberal economists) of a few years back that ranked University of Toledo 13th nationally in terms of the ratio of administrators to students. This is not a good ranking to hold. The Gaber idea is to save money and improve perceptions.

Anonymous said...

Define who is an administrator? I get the impression that readers of this blog view everyone who is not faculty and who doesn't push a broom as an evil administrator. Let me tell you there is more to running a modern university than teaching class and mopping floors. I wonder if the Hoover Institute study considered ever PSA member as an administrator?

I'm sick and tired of hearing about administrative bloat as the reason higher education is so expensive and students graduate with so much debt. Wake-up. You've been fed a lie. You've fallen victim to a divide and conquor ploy (again!).

Tuition is so high because the state has cut the subsidy almost every year for the past thirty years or so. Compounding the student debt is the lifestyle of students today. Gone are the days of two students sharing a 150 square foot dorm room with common bathrooms down the hall. Today students are demanding luxury housing (on and off campus). Guess how they pay for it? Directly or indirectly it adds to their debt-load.

Republicans are destroyig public education and many on this blog seem to have bought into their reality distortion. Dean are not the enemy. Administrators are not the enemy. Unions are not the enemy, Faculty aren't the enemy. The enemies are the right-wing ideologues and their agents like Scarborough.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised that the arts folks clique put on a show for the president about how they loved the dean and college--the message the dean has been trying to put out for a while is the supposed wonderfulness of COCA. Weren't they once know as a college of performing arts? They put on a performance. At least it seemed quite staged to me, as an independent dispassionate observer.

Anonymous said...


I whole-heartedly agree with your statements. PSA may perform administrative functions, but they are NOT accomplishing those functions at bloated salaries. As a faculty member, I appreciate the hard work and the heavy lifting done by PSA to make this institution work. When Dave Dabney attempted to "cut" administrative costs, I believe he did so by cutting PSA positions, not by cutting the redundant higher level administrative positions. When PSA positions were cut in Rocket Hall, there was a noticeable rise in snafus, clearly because of a reduction in the number of people who did the actual work! Higher level management at this institution causes more problems than it solves. I am also worried for PSA members, given the current state of the HR office.

Anonymous said...


Bloggie:

Did your mole in the COCA meeting indicate whether the new president discussed or indicated how she plans to address UT's $11.5 million budget deficit?

Anonymous said...

Let me be clear: PSA are accomplishing their administrative functions, but they are NOT earning bloated salaries.

Anonymous said...

I see no problem with COCA faculty supporting the status quo in regards to their Dean and College, the forum was intended for them to have a voice in their future, clearly there are pro and cons to a COCA/CLLSS merger and the President needs to hear from both sides and both Colleges.

Setting aside PSA staff, it is clear (including public comments made repeatedly by President Gaber) that UT has too many Deans, VPs, Associate or Assistant VPS, Associate Provosts and other forms of upper administration when compared to comparative institutions of Higher Ed, so expect more reductions of these positions and merging of portfolios as one response by UT to the state mandate to reduce costs by 5%.

And the meeting of COCA with the President was not about the budget deficit but views of the faculty regarding college merger with CLLSS, so unless the question was asked of her I doubt it was a topic of discussion at that forum. But clearly cutting administrative postions (some of which have already occurred) and other cost saving measures are already underway with more to come.

Anonymous said...

The COMM department voice (a small minority of COCA faculty even though they have the large majority of majors in the college (think about the meaning of that) was drowned out by the show put on by the performance people. The president did in fact mention and acknowledge the shortfall. The COMM department faculty want out of COCA.

Anonymous said...

The the COMM faculty needed to attend the meeting en mass and be heard or ask for their own meeting with the President, or send her a petition with all their signatures. There simply is no excuse for the COMM faculty to sit by and let it happen without their voices being heard.

Anonymous said...

To 8:28. You are so self righteous! Try reading carefully. Sound out the words if that helps. COMM did attend en masse, and were drowned out because they have a very small number of faculty compared to all the COCA personnel, despite COMM majority of students. This apparently sailed over your head. Blaming the victims is what you are doing! Insensitive! A letter has been sent.

Anonymous said...

COMM faculty use the the victim and apathy cards, pathetic.