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