To Our New President:
Let me begin by welcoming you to the University of Toledo. Many of us want nothing more than for you to be a huge success. I must admit that I am a little surprised you were offered the job given that most of the faculty and staff believe you to be the most qualified applicant. And, therein lies the reason for this post. This faculty and previous administrations and Boards of Trustees have not played well in the same sandbox. Depending on where you stand on a variety of the issues depends on which group you blame. Some day when you have a minute, a day or perhaps a week I would be happy to fill you in on the last 28 years. But, the past is not the reason for this post--the future is. My personal belief is there are several items that as a new President you can attend to that would get us all headed in the correct direction.
1. Settle the union contract. Four years of "negotiating" is ridiculous. Millions have been given to nonunion members in raises while our erstwhile BOT pleads they have no money. This continued nonsense is a slap in the face to every faculty member at UT. Success or failure ultimately depends on who's in the classroom not who's in the board room.
2. Transparency. It's a beautiful word that just rolls off of the tongue. Everyone talks about it but few practice it. A recent Blade editorial complained about the search process having a lack of transparency but failed to note in the article that their President/General Manager was the head of the search committee. If you really want the faculty to believe you are interested in transparency then please place the Blue Book back in the Library archives where anyone can access it. This is a copy of the university budget that from the 1940s to 2011 was placed in the UT archives located on the fifth floor of the library. Anyone, student or nonstudent, could access this document. Starting in 2011 it was removed and placed online. You needed a password. Actually you needed several because each section had a different password. The goal was to make access as difficult as possible. This past year a copy has been placed on reserve in the library. This is better but you have to be a member of the UT community in order to gain access. In other words the average taxpayer still can't get at basic information about UT. This should be an easy fix.
3. There is an old joke about the old CEO telling the new CEO that he/she has left him/her three envelopes in the desk drawer and when he/she runs into trouble open one of the envelopes. As it so happens after about six months there is trouble so the CEO opens the first letter. It says blame the previous CEO. The new CEO does this and it works for a while. Then there is more trouble and the CEO opens the next envelope. It says reorganize. This works for a while and then there is more trouble. The CEO opens the last envelope. Its says get three envelopes. Please do not spend time blaming the previous administration or in attempting to reorganize. It has long been my belief that if you have the right people almost any organization will do; and, if you have the wrong ones reorganizing will do little to help. Let us get down the road.
4. Leave the jargon and hyperbole at home. I have been synergized to the point my dishwasher starts every time I walk by it. Please leave words like "transformative" and "improving the human condition" out of your conversations. Leave the Mission Statement alone. No one reads it anyway. I have had all the flowery language I can take for one career. In plain everyday English tell us what you think needs to be done and how you are planning on helping us achieve this. You have said you are data driven. Fine. Show me the data that drives your decisions. I have three examples that I believe show why we need data and not opinion. First you have probably noticed the honors dorms being erected on the west end of campus. These appeared one day like magic. There was no discussion about what an Honors College should be and why they need separate dorms. Instead we have someone building dorms for which have guaranteed a specific level of occupancy. The second example is our Schoolcraft agreement. Rumor has it that this is for ten years and that we have already sunk over one million dollars into this. I do not need to be notified every time someone in the administration wants to go to lunch, but it would be far more transparent if people actually had some idea of what was going on. The third example is about the former College of Arts and Sciences. The College ran a dean's search and the committee suggested three candidates. President Jacobs added a fourth over the objection of the committee. The fourth candidate became the President's choice to run the college. While he was a pleasant person, he was not a good dean and the College Council voted no confidence. The President removed the dean and placed an outside person with almost no academic experience in charge of the college. The President then brought in a consultant (Robert Zemsky) and we had a couple of roundtable discussions. Actually over 40 of us were invited to participate in these discussions. And yes forty is a silly number but the President needed all these various folks so he could claim he actually sought out a variety of opinions. After that Zemsky wrote a report and subsequently so did the College Council. The report, suggesting a new direction for the college, was submitted and the College was almost immediately disbanded. It was divided into three separate Colleges. It was a grand waste of time and money. Please don't view this as a plea to reform the College. Just don't make a decision and then pretend to have people discuss it and spend time on it when you have no real interest in anything they have to say. There are plenty of other examples that include simulators and windmills but others can fill you in.
5. I will not attempt to explain the Blade to you other than to tell you Paul Block was the driving force behind the establishment of a medical college in northwestern Ohio. For the "rest of the story" you are on your own. You have the background to be a big success here. Just let us know beforehand what you want done and why. We can make this work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
C’mon, Dave.
Cheap, safe cynicism and jaded scornfulness, while popular at UT these days, is so unflattering.
The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, and many other national and regional accrediting bodies stress the critical importance of university mission statements. The HLC’s Criterion One, “Mission and Integrity,” reads, “The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.”
A lot of faculty sweat equity went into the development of the current mission, vision and values statements.
You’ll likely piss off our HLC visitors, who do think university mission statements are vital and even read ‘em and who are coming next year.
But I agree with you on one point. The university community should always be mindful of the power of the Block family in Toledo. For decades, they, like many media moguls past and present, have used The Blade as their trump card into power politics in Toledo and across the state and used the newspaper to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
Better to be on their good side!
I stand by my statement. The mission statement is so flowery and touchy feely as to be worthless. The Higher Learning Commission falls under the same criticism. We have been evaluated numerous times over the past 28 years. Zillions of hours and countless dollars have been spent filling out reports. And so I ask you, are we better off today than when I arrived here in 1987? My answer is no. Mission statements are like the politician who when running for office proclaims, "I love education." This is meaningless. Is there anyone who hates education. Mission statements are there to make you feel good. Have you ever seen one that says, "our mission is to get you to borrow as much money as possible and to keep you enrolled until you will be in debt for the next 50 years?
Not that any one is asking, but here's my vision for what a great president would do.
1. Hire the best people possible for key positions such as Provost, VPs, Deans, etc.
2. Make sure those hires contain a balance of external and internal hires. We need new thinking and ideas, but we also need institutional memory and continuity.
3. Let those people do their jobs as long as they continue to uphold the highest levels of transparency, honesty, and commitment to serve the greater UT community. Hold them accountable, but give them the power they need.
4. As President focus, on community engagement, fund raising, creating partnerships, and in general being highly visible in promoting UT and the region.
5. Create a sense of community, a shared vision and a sense of family among the faculty and staff of both campuses. Unite us.
I think Dr. Gaber can do these things. I for one am very optimistic.
I would ad that Dr. Gaber needs to listen to faculty, staff, and students, as much as she might listen to administrators. The BOT made the serious mistake of taking Jacobs' and Gold's word for Gospel truth. They continue to make this mistake when they listen only to Morlock and Biggs regarding the state of the university.
Does anyone on this blog actually think that the new president has been told she is following a failed administration? She's been told exactly what the public has been told: Jacobs moved on voluntarily after exemplary service, he's still employed by UT, a building is being named after him to cement his legacy, and many of his former people have moved on to bigger and better positions. One has even become the president of another university. She's being told the bar has already been set high for her by Jacobs, and she needs to follow by example.
I think we need to give the new Pres. some credit for being able to think. I am sure she has or will be told all those "wonderful" stories of the previous administration by folks once she arrives and actually meets faculty in settings other than those of job seeker.
And with a budget surplus, the alleged "failed" president still with a six figure salary and secretary and office on campus, I'm sure the new president will be all ears to the complaints of her faculty, who will be , of course, speaking with one voice and one version of what's failed. After all, faculty are by definition the voices of truth and reason and would themselves be fixing the ship of academia if they weren't already so damned busy.
Just one last shot here before we move on. We have to hope the new Pres. is her own person. If she isn't then she becomes one more in a long line of completely forgettable people who have been given the reigns of this institution. So far I have no reason to believe one way or another about her motives or reactions to the former big cheese. She has been around the academy for a fair amount of time and should have some ability to discern stuff that works from stuff that doesn't. We should have our answer fairly soon.
"discern stuff that works from stuff that doesn't" - isn't this the root of the problem? The "stuff" in question is defined differently by admin and faculty, not just here at UT, but increasingly across the country. And that's w/o even delving into the differences of opinion regarding "works."
If the goal is increased enrollment, that should be easy to discern. If the goal is an improved student body, then that also should be easy to discern.
The same should be true of increased outside funding for research. I do agree with anonymous 1:31 p.m. that some items will be far more difficult to judge. Faculty morale, spending priorities, hiring, and the relative importance and funding of the Medical School and the Main Campus. It would seem that by now the law of averages should be in our favor.
Interesting that Gaber and the Board are looking at priorities in areas in which were not for LJ and that he clearly was a failure at (enrollment, research funding, fund raising, recruiting senior leadership). I am not so sure her hire is tied to trying to do better then LJ since the Board is very well aware of shortfalls in those areas. I actually think if given the support, resources and freedom any new President deserves, she can be successful in working on those goals only because LJ was soooo bad at them and improvements would be seen as huge.
Jacobs said he would increase enrollment to 25,000 (went down), increase research spending to $100 million (went down), increase UT's regional and national prestige (didn't happen) and would turn the Scott Park Campus into a giant clean energy park (never got the federal money).
I have high hopes that Gaber will actually work on problems instead of proposing grandiose ideas before thinking them out.
And, speaking of the Blade, in case you forgot:
On October 20, 1999, UT Board of Trustees chairman Ron Langenderfer appeared on a local radio program and a number of television stations saying that Toledo Blade co-publisher and editor-in-chief, John Robinson Block, made “threats” against the University in a recent meeting with University officials and others.
It was widely reported that that Block said that, “We are going to bring UT down and then build it back up as we did the port authority.” Block denied making the statements in an article in the Blade on October 21.
The next day, October 22, The Blade reported on a news conference that took place on the front steps of University Hall supporting the statements of Mr. Langenderfer. UT provost Dr. Henry Moon and University governmental relations director Sally Perz spoke. Both were present at the meeting with Mr. Block.
“It really saddens me to have to give these words…The statements made by the chairman of UT’s board of trustees were absolutely true,” the Blade quoted Perz as saying. Mr. Langenderfer’s statements “honestly characterized the words and tones of the meeting,” she added.
And while Jacobs may be gone (at least as President) his mistakes with bad hires continues, including one advanced with no previous experience into a job and now on paid administrative leave due to violation of university policies. I could never understand why the Board was not holding Jacobs more accountable for his terrible performance with hiring administrative staff, such as two failed Provost searches when all the candidates backed out after meeting with Jacobs.
**such as two failed Provost searches when all the candidates backed out after meeting with Jacobs**
Great. Reminds me of this quote in the Blade: His predecessor, Lloyd Jacobs, was a brilliant man but known for an acerbic bluntness, if not arrogance, that chilled many a conversation. One friend told me that, after a single meeting with Mr. Jacobs, he resolved that, “I would not meet with him again if it were to save the world.”
What we have to remember is that this Board (along with the Board in 2006) had no idea as to the expectations of a University President since Jacobs only got the job as a condition of the merger. He was not qualified and the expectations were not set that reflected what he and a President should be expected the achieve. Jacobs was hired to see to the merger, bring up MUO, drag down UT, cut budget and staff, and get faculty in line, one could even suggest it was an intention effort by the Blade and the Blocks to take apart UT as they certainly intended knowing what kind of leadership and management approach was coming with Jacobs as President.
Hey Bloggie, you're a communications guy. Is there any rule or law in your field that states that given enough time all conversations de-evolve into lunacy?
The conspiracy theories about the Blade are really too much. No one want to deliberately drag down UT. Yes that was the result of the merger (at least in the short to medium term), but intentional? No.
The Blade looking to take down UT is not a speculated conspiracy, as posted earlier on this forum..
"On October 20, 1999, UT Board of Trustees chairman Ron Langenderfer appeared on a local radio program and a number of television stations saying that Toledo Blade co-publisher and editor-in-chief, John Robinson Block, made “threats” against the University in a recent meeting with University officials and others.
It was widely reported that that Block said that, “We are going to bring UT down and then build it back up as we did the port authority.” Block denied making the statements in an article in the Blade on October 21.
The next day, October 22, The Blade reported on a news conference that took place on the front steps of University Hall supporting the statements of Mr. Langenderfer. UT provost Dr. Henry Moon and University governmental relations director Sally Perz spoke. Both were present at the meeting with Mr. Block.
“It really saddens me to have to give these words…The statements made by the chairman of UT’s board of trustees were absolutely true,” the Blade quoted Perz as saying. Mr. Langenderfer’s statements “honestly characterized the words and tones of the meeting,” she added."
To Anonymous 2:31. "You are wise, so you will gladly be patient with fools! (2 Corinthians 11:19). Why else would you heap sarcasm on Bloggie here and move on to deny or feign ignorance about the obviously carefully-crafted, long-term intentional Block/Blade conspiracy against liberal leanings of the UT main campus faculty (and its support of labor unions)? Your comment is crapolla.
Did anyone at UT or MOU or involved in any way with the merger really believe the Jacobs was qualified to be President of UT, compared to the last several former Presidents he had none of the experience needed to run a mid sized public university with over 20,000 students, thousands of staff and at that time a $500 million budget. Everyone behind the scenes of the merger was well aware of what Jacobs was going to bring to the table and what clearly lacked - which is what led to the clear failures during his tenure as President: bad financial decisions, micromanagement, can not hire senior staff, inability to fund raise, lacks personal skills to interact with alumni, donors, community leaders etc... All of which would have been apparent to anyone who looked at Jacobs or if a true national search for President was conducted and compare him to the other candidates. The recent search clearly revealed how unprepared Jacobs was and how his experience was so lacking when you see the quality of those we would have attracted with a national search then.
J.R. Block is a study in psychological pathology. Combine that with the bully pulpit (emphasis on bully) he still commands, as well as his propensity for holding grudges and you have one of the reasons for Toledo's longstanding dysfunction. Dr. Gaber would be wise to placate JR as much as is reasonable, but not give him overmuch credence - doing so only feeds his hubris.
Bloggie, can we adopt a policy that only people who have completed the eighth grade contribute to this blog?
The ten seconds I wasted reading the absurdity and idiocy of the anonymous 11:20 post a.m. are 10 seconds of my life I’ll never get back.
To Anonymous 6:45 AM = 2:31 PM. Why you persist to keep buzzing around this honeypot-that-stinks-to-high-heaven is beyond me. Yet you persist. You seem to be blinded by your superiority complex and knee-jerk righteous indignation. Conspiracies exist. Maybe you are not as smart as you imagine you are. Stick around and pay attention. You will learn a lot.
M. Flibbertigibbet:
First of all I was Anon 2:31 PM. 6:45 AM was someone else.
Why do I keep hanging around here? Because I've worked here for over 30 years and I care.
Do you? Do you really? Or do you just sit in your pathetic little world and criticize those of us who work to make this a better a University for everyone? Granted Jacobs and Company was easy to criticize and needed to be, but that era is over.
It is time to roll up your sleeves and get to work to make this the best University possible. Work a little harder, work a little smarter. Try to understand the big picture. Live in the present and the future, not the past. Be part of the solution.
Stop condemning every administrator as incompetent and overpaid. Yes, some are. Many, if not most, are not.
The idea is to work together for the common good. How can that happen with so many of you spewing so much hatred, negativity, and resentment of an administration that has been banished for good.
The BOT are not stupid people. They have learned from their mistakes and have acted very appropriately since then. We would all love to hear them rip Jacobs apart in public. My guess is some of them would love to too, but they can't expose themselves and the University to litigation. The BOT made a mistake trusting Jacobs. They learned and acted appropriately. It is over. Move on. There is work to be done, not digging up 16 year old quotes to support an idiotic conspiracy theory.
With a fresh start for the University coming, why are we still stuck in negotiations and/or arbitration over a reasonable contract for faculty? The academic year is almost done therefore we will soon be on what? Year 5 with no contract? Beyond the problems that this has caused faculty, it has also created a management problem for the new President. Normally, it is in management's interests to treat people doing similar jobs in a similar manner. One wants to avoid situations where workers think that they are being unfairly treated compared to people who have the same job duties. That inequity leads to employee dissatisfaction and strife (and sometimes discrimination lawsuits). Management textbooks will tell you that dissatisfied workers have less job commitment than do those without major dissatisfactions. Why does this matter for the contract situation and for the President? Because of the contract delays, changes in the market, and inflation, the junior faculty being hired this year are coming in at significantly higher salaries than current faculty in the same departments. This is particularly problematic in LLSS where base pay is pretty low compared to other disciplines. Some newly hired assistant professors in that college are making 20% or more than assistant professors hired between 2009 and 2013. That blatant inequity sounds like a management headache for the new President. The Board should sort this out and give her a clean plate.
Agree 100%. Unless the BOT is completely dysfunctional, they need to get this done before the new president comes in. It is totally unfair for her to begin with such a hot button issue to deal with from day one.
"The BOT are not stupid people. They have learned from their mistakes and have acted very appropriately since then"
Since when? In just the last year they have continued to make major mistakes impacting the ability of the University to advance and improve:
1. Gave Jacobs an extra year on his contract, bonus and other benefits rather then just fire him.
2. Pushed hard for a Presidential candidate who was clearly unqualified based on the opinions of very one else.
3. After over four years still can not close a contract with the AAUP.
4. Pushing for a budget that includes significant financial commitments to depreciation of buildings, a practice uncommon for a public institution which results in major cuts to operating budgets.
5. approving questionable investments in programs and initiatives that will have little positive impact on enrollment and retention.
Replies to 6:59 AM
1. If that's what it took to get rid of him without litigation and more negative press, so be it.
2. Who pushed hard, the entire BOT in lockstep unison or maybe one or two members? In the end, they did the right thing.
3. I'll concede this point.
4. Common sense would seem to indicate that we should allocate for depreciation.
5. You mean they approved funding for something other than your department?
1. If that's what it took to get rid of him without litigation and more negative press, so be it.
His contract ended in 2016 no need to extend it and he serves at the pleasure of the Board if they determined he had not meet his goals and add bonus and other perks.
2. Who pushed hard, the entire BOT in lockstep unison or maybe one or two members? In the end, they did the right thing.
Only because Howard withdrew even though some of the Board members and chair wanted him badly
3. I'll concede this point.
4. Common sense would seem to indicate that we should allocate for depreciation.
Yes, if we were a business and there were associated tax benefits, talk to those at other campuses where depreciation is also an issue but not commonly used annually and have major impacts on the annual operating budget (cutting staff, faculty lines and program budgets) to do so.
5. You mean they approved funding for something other than your department?
My department is doing fine, but over $1 million for Schoolcraft??
If the char of the BOT wanted Howard "badly", then I suggest he resign.
Other than a few years as a mid-level administrator at Oklahoma, he had no experience at a large state university. Also, no experience as a faculty member or researcher.
His current college is so different from UT, that it's like another universe.
Howard might be qualified to be the president of a larger, private school in the South like a Furman or Davidson, but certainly not UT.
Show me one public comment, utterance, or document where Zerbey said he wanted Howard.
First the blog speculates, then the speculation is repeated often enough so it get believed, then he is dragged through the mud for being so stupid.
Dr. Gaber, please do not allow this to happen!
http://independentcollegian.com/2015/04/01/news/rocket-hall-to-be-converted-into-new-ut-alumni-center/
Of course no one on the Board or Search Committee is going to make any public comment on the candidates or search process at any time during or even after the process as it would be unprofessional and inappropriate to do so, especially now that a President has been selected and deserves full complete support from the Board. But believe it or not I have it on very good authority that some members of the Board actively recruited Howard and strongly supported him including through the first Board meeting to discuss a hiring decision. It then became a mute point later that same day when Howard withdrew, but make no mistake Zerbey wanted Howard.
Anonymous 7:56 writes in response to the news report that Rocket Hall will be converted into a new UT Alumni Center:
"Dr. Gaber, please do not allow this to happen!"
I encourage members of the UT main campus community to similarly address their concerns to Dr. Gaber directly through the convenience, efficacy and security of Bloggie.
I know that Dr. Gaber is learning the history of the mistakes of Jacobs Inc. by systematically browsing through its rich, accessible archives, using its search engine (for example, by searching "roundtable" and "Zemsky" and "Carlson Library" and so on.
Where else might Dr. Gaber go to get solid, detailed, trustworthy news about the entire, disastrous Jacobs era? Names, dates and the entire kit and caboodle of UT misadventures under the Jacobs business model are all waiting to be read about in the Bloggie archives.
With regard to your own concerns about the planned transformation of Rocket Hall: Please articulate them in detail and post your perspective on the issue again here on Bloggie so your colleagues and Dr. Gaber can better learn about and discuss this important issue. Thanks!
Who cares about Rocket Hall? Many of the classrooms are not used as faculty and students do not want to go over there from central areas where most teaching and offices are on main campus. There is plenty of space to keep current offices and functions in place at Rocket Hall while converting space for Alumni Center as Discoll Center is not ideal whereas adding or redesigning space at Rocket Hall could create great opportunities for alumni services and events with easy parking and close to Secor/Dorr redevelopment by the UT Foundation. On any given day Rocket Hall is pretty much empty of students and activity besides behind the scene staff offices and the Registers Office and Rocket Solutions. No way entire Rocket Hall would be converted for only an Alumni Center but spaces could be.
I want the blog to reveal all dean evaluations conducted by faculty senate. I also want the incoming president and the interim provost to swiftly remove bad deans so UT can start fresh.
All faculty will soon receive results of evaluations of their college Dean from the Provosts Office
There is no way I would submit my evaluation of my dean given the current procedure in place. I have very little confidence that there is no risk of disclosure. I'm sure I am not the only one who feels this way.
What's going on at YouCollege? The Blade is really going after this.
And well the newspaper should!
The cover-up stench wafting from 2800 West Bancroft St. is overwhelming.
Four administrators who oversee the unit responsible for implementing UT's expensive primary strategy for retaining and graduating students are placed on leave and everybody is lawyering up.
Another excellent example of the essential watchdog role of the press over a governmental unit.
Could it be:
Academic fraud?
Embezzlement of funds?
Inappropriate, offensive emails?
C'mon gang. Weigh in with your favorite conspiratorial theory?
How is the Blade all over this? They published one article.
How the hell can you ASSUME cover up? Don't you think those people deserve due process in privacy? You would demand that if you were under investigation. Have you ever heard of the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
This isn't sport or a game to see who can post the most insane theory. You are dealing with the lives and careers of people and this institution's reputation.
Maybe they are guilty of something, maybe there are not. It is futile to speculate and WRONG to jump to conclusions.
This blog treats UT exactly the same way FOX News treats President Obama.
Previous comment from UT was that it was not a criminal act, so my guess given those involved with four across three different levels would be academic fraud (changing grades). And yes when you have four people under investigation within one area it is serious enough for the Blade to report, interesting that UT will not release additional information, resulting in speculation here on this blog and on campus
Thank you dear administrative shill for "correcting" the report. Actually, 31 percent is a pretty good response rate these days, especially considering (1) that many people did not take the survey because they were worried about confidentiality issues, and (2) I'm sure Jamie had her friends wax on wonderfully about her wonderfulness as dean. The big problem is of course that that the wonderfulness only goes to her buddies.
Post a Comment