PRESIDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY 2006-2007

A total of 215 out of 605 President surveys were completed (compared to 290 out of 605 last year [41.3% return rate]), resulting in a 35.5% return rate. In the two comparison years, the survey was conducted on-line by e-mailing each eligible faculty member a link to complete the document. As shown by the return rate, the response rate declined by approximately 6% (5.8). This could have been caused by the Academic Vice-president announcing during the survey period that he was leaving the University.

Questions on the evaluation survey were divided into three focus areas: Total Campus Enterprise, Academic Goals, and Personnel, Faculty Relations and Campus Issues. Demographic information along with open comment sections were also included on the survey. The results of the survey can be seen in the attached document, referred to as the Summary Report (Appendix A).

The Summary Report provides a quantitative review of the President’s job performance for the Academic years of 2005/06 and 2006/07. To read the Summary Report, the question number is column one, followed by the actual question in the second column. There is no difference in the wording of the questions between the two years shown.. The mean scores along with standard deviations (SD) and the number of respondents (N) that answered each question for both periods (2005/06 and 2006/07) is last.

Additionally, each focus area was broken down and analyzed based on demographic information. From the analysis of the demographic information, statistically there were no significant differences relating to gender, college/academic unit, and years of service on the responses for the focus areas. Opinions taken from the comments section were typed as written and will be provided to the President.

*Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion. In other words, it measures the degree to which responses are dispersed about the mean. The larger the standard deviation, the more the scores differ from the mean. Alternatively, if the standard deviation is small, this indicates that the scores were very close to one another. A t-test is used to assess whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.

Executive Summary

The fourth annual faculty-initiated survey of the President's performance was implemented. A total of 215 faculty members participated in the survey out of a possible 605 eligible faculty members, resulting in a 35.5% return rate. All questions were scored on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being very effective. The mean scores ranged from 4.22 to 6.25.

On questions 7 (6.19), 21 (6.25), and 23 (6.11), the faculty responded with the highest mean scores. The last two questions were also among the highest-rated last year. All three of these questions related to the faculty's perception of the President's accessibility to the staff, people of the region, and the working environment of faculty located in the Quad Cities.

On questions 6 (4.87), 13 (4.73), and 16 (4.22), the faculty responded with the lowest mean scores. All three of these questions dealt with issues of providing adequate resources for faculty to accomplish the mission of the university. These exact three questions also had the lowest mean scores on the 2005/2006 evaluation.

From the analysis of the demographic information, statistically there were no effects of gender, college/academic unit, and years of service on the responses.

Appendix A: Summary Report

Faculty Survey of the President

Please respond to the following items by checking the number on the scale that best reflects your perception of President Goldfarb’s effectiveness in dealing with the issues outlined below. The scale ranges from 1 (not effective) to 7 (highly effective). If you feel that you do not have enough information to form an opinion please answer “No Opinion”.

Question	Question		2005/06			2006/07
Number		Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N
1	Overall, the President facilitates the mission of Western Illinois University.	6.03	1.33	293	6.01	1.38	210
2	The President initiates policies and programs that support the mission of the University with regard to long-term strategic planning.	6.01	1.36	293	5.91	1.41	202
3	The President initiates policies and programs that support the mission of the University with regard to short-term strategic planning.	5.8	1.47	291	5.63	1.55	193
4	The President promotes the positive development and enrichment of faculty.	5.46	1.65	292	5.30	1.76	202
5	The President creates and supports an environment that is rewarding to work in.	5.45	1.74	291	5.33	1.91	207
6	The President supports policies and programs that facilitate the activities of your department and/or academic unit.	5.18	1.87	292	4.87	1.90	201
7	The President actively facilities a positive interaction between the people of Western Illinois University, Macomb, and the Western Illinois region.	6.37	1.21	293	6.19	1.23	201
8	The President secures funding to support University initiatives.	5.69	1.69	293	5.41	1.70	185
9	The President works effectively with the Board of Trustees in representing the interests of the faculty and university at large.	6.50	1.42	291	5.88	1.42	162
10	The President develops and maintains effective relationships with governmental agencies.	6.66	1.39	294	5.93	1.41	151
11	The President develops and maintains effective relationships with potential donors and alumni.	6.59	1.45	292	6.02	1.30	161
12	The President supports and advances the academic standards of students at Western Illinois University.	5.72	1.46	292	5.45	1.68	199
13	The President works effectively with the Provost/Academic Vice President in identifying and providing the resources necessary for your department and/or academic unit to accomplish the mission of Western Illinois University.	4.96	2.04	291	4.73	1.94	183
14	The President works effectively with the Provost/Academic Vice President in anticipating the future needs of Western Illinois University students (i.e., technology infrastructure and student services).	5.38	1.97	291	5.02	1.82	178
15	The President works effectively with Student Services in developing programs and policies that foster student leadership and co-curricular participation.	6.59	1.55	292	5.67	1.50	124
16	The President provides the resources necessary for your department and/or academic unit to accomplish the research mission of the faculty.	4.67	2.12	292	4.22	2.01	196
17	The President supports faculty governance at all levels.	5.74	1.79	291	5.53	1.70	190
18	The President promotes excellence and diversity in faculty, staff, and student activities through management practices.	5.82	1.65	289	5.74	1.46	189
19	The President is accessible and open to faculty concerns.	5.91	1.55	291	5.80	1.56	198
20	The President is accessible and open to staff concerns.	6.93	1.55	290	6.04	1.46	106
21	The President is accessible and open to student(s') concerns.	6.81	1.35	290	6.25	1.13	198
22	The President promotes a healthy, safe, and pleasant environment to work in on the Macomb campus.	5.80	1.66	288	5.56	1.64	198
23	The President promotes a healthy, safe, and pleasant environment to work in on the Quad Cities campus.	5.99	1.32	69	6.11	1.48	80
24	The President directs the University's physical facilities in a manner that meets the need of your department and/or academic unit.	5.26	2.01	292	4.70	2.02	186

Comments from the President’s Performance Survey

As part of the 2006-2007 Annual Faculty Survey of the President, the 215 faculty respondents provided 147 comments in the three categories of review in the survey (Total Campus Enterprise; Academic Goals; and Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues). The President has received a print copy of all comments. The Committee on Provost and Presidential Performance has reviewed the comments, and an Executive Summary of those comments is hereby being shared with the faculty.

Total Campus Enterprise:

Several faculty members commented positively on the President's skill in leading the University in the proper direction, and as an advocate for the University. Some respondents spoke favorably of his accessibility and his level of care for the faculty and staff. Some comments attributed to the President the increased visibility of WIU in the Quad Cities and across the state. Many respondents indicated that President Goldfarb is highly effective, with one stating that he is “the most positive 'thing' that has happened to WIU for years.” At the same time, several responses criticized the addition of administrators, thereby consuming significant resources and placing an additional layer between the President and the rest of the WIU community. Some believe that much of the work being done is solely for the sake of public relations.

Several responses made reference to the First Year Experience. Comments were generally favorable. Some questioned whether FYE was sustainable over the long term, whether FYE positively impacted retention of students, and whether FYE has been properly assessed.

Various facility-related issues were expressed. Critical comments were made about the monument placed outside of Simpkins hall and the ongoing changes in the library (elimination of faculty research carrels, transformation into a “food court and entertainment center”).

Another concern expressed in several responses was the working relationship between the President and the Provost. Some faculty seem to perceive a lack of confidence on the part of the President in the Provost's decisions and actions. Others indicated that the President seemed to be in support of the Provost's ideas, but that the ideas were not good. Other comments extended further down the administrative chain, expressing a desire for the President to renew regular contact at the departmental level.

Concern was expressed about both the quantity and the quality of students at WIU. It was noted that enrollment numbers are stressed, but funding has not increased to serve the larger enrollment. Some questioned whether the real concern was body count and the numbers of students that could be pushed through WIU, rather than trying to attract better students, and whether many of our students were qualified to be here.

Finally, the Quad Cities campus was a recurring theme throughout the survey. In this section the comments consistently suggested that too much effort was being expended on the Quad Cities campus, at the expense of the Macomb campus. Some expressed that they tire of hearing about funding for the QC while wondering what will be done locally, and others question whether the QC efforts will have a real, positive impact on WIU as a whole.

Academic Goals:

The most common themes in this section were funding, importance of research, and academic standards. Several faculty members indicated that funding for research efforts, including support for travel to professional conferences, was insufficient. One remarked that the University had adequate funds but could better allocate them. Concern was expressed over lack of substance if research expectations were significantly raised without adequate funding and appropriate reduction of teaching load. In addition it was suggested that faculty with significant research experience be given load reductions in order to make them available for consultation with less experienced faculty members.

Some of the comments took the form of requests to reengage with the faculty at the departmental level and to emphasize quality teaching above quality research. The comments indicated a fear that ramping up research expectations, particularly for new hires, would result in a reduction or loss of quality in teaching, thereby negatively impacting the reputation of WIU. Some comments indicated that the administration did not fully appreciate the resource needs to support research in particular disciplines.

A number of faculty expressed dissatisfaction with the level of care about academic issues. The comments criticized slogans and marketing efforts, characterized recent admission trends as lowering standards in practice while appearing to raise them, and focusing on attracting students with various new facilities while the older facilities are allowed to deteriorate. One suggested that first-class faculty and educational facilities should be the top priority, and that should be our focus for attracting quality students. Numerous comments addressed necessary repairs and upgrades to existing facilities in order to provide a suitable academic environment. The need for technology upgrades and the manner by which rooms or buildings are selected for upgrades were mentioned by several faculty members, as was the current state of our technology infrastructure. These comments were balanced with positive comments addressing the President's continued commitment to research and teaching, a strong emphasis on academic excellence from the top down, and the establishment of very high academic standards and goals at WIU.

Finally, comments about the working relationship between the President and the Provost arose again in this section of the survey. Comments were fairly evenly distributed between the perception of a very good working relationship and a fairly poor working relationship. Some comments implied that some of our upper-level administrators were detrimental to the University or were pursuing their own agendas for personal reward, some questioned the level of competence or interest of upper-level administration. These perceptions were identified as having a negative impact on morale. Other comments indicated that the President and Provost made a great team, bringing about outstanding achievements at WIU.

Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues:

The President received numerous positive comments in this category. Faculty commended the President for his genuine concern for people at WIU, for visiting faculty, staff, and students across campus, for being open, available, and willing to listen, and for his good working relationship with UPI. A smaller number of comments indicate a perception that the President has distanced himself from the faculty, and that his expressed belief in shared governance is not making it down the administrative hierarchy.

Again in this section, faculty members pointed out problems with WIU’s infrastructure. Many commented on the state of academic buildings, stating that repairs and technology enhancements should not take a back seat to new initiatives such as the Performing Arts Center. Other complaints included lack of space, leaks during rainstorms, poor temperature control, outward appearance of buildings, the amount of deferred maintenance, condition of classrooms and furnishings, and problems with plumbing. These problems impact morale, academic performance, and the relationship between faculty and administration. The common thread throughout these comments is that we should fix what we already have before we go on to new construction.

Time and effort spent on the Quad Cities campus was mentioned several times. One faculty member commented that the QC faculty know the President better than the Macomb faculty do because of the disproportionate amount of time he spends there. Others commented on the amount of resources expended on consultants for the QC and for the long-term facilities master plan for Macomb. Concern was expressed about the deteriorating atmosphere in the Quad Cities, concern that the leadership there is weak, and that the QC is ultimately a losing proposition. Not all Quad Cities comments were negative or critical, however. Some comments commended the President for his work in expanding the Quad Cities campus, indicating that this is the future for WIU.

Comments about working relationships and the WIU administration in general continued in this section. A concern over consistency in messages to the faculty was raised. One responder gave hiring policy as an example -- one message was received from upper administration while another (presumably conflicting) message was received from the dean. The responder expressed a desire for the President to seek consistency across all levels of the administration. Other faculty members voiced concern over a perceived increase in administrative positions but no corresponding increase in faculty, and concern over whether the President is aware of various administrative problems further down the hierarchy.

Additional concerns include the cost and quality of the work done by Physical Plant employees, social issues such as the level of binge-drinking among our students, problems with secretarial staff, the winter weather advisory policy, the sexual harassment training program, the ISP program, and making WIU a smoke-free campus. Respondents indicated that even if a given issue was not under direct control of the President, his input would carry considerable influence.

Additional Comments:

The collection of additional comments regarding President Goldfarb's performance contained a majority of very positive comments pertaining to his character, leadership skills, and relationships with the University and the community. Among the many positive comments, he is characterized as “the best President I have seen” by one respondent who has been at WIU for three decades.

Concerns expressed here are primarily repeats of concerns expressed in earlier responses. These items include hiring administrators in times of flat departmental budgets, less frequent contact between the President and the faculty, the condition of buildings across campus, the working relationship between the President and the Provost, lack of funding, and the transformation of the library.

Conclusion:

Several consistent themes emerge from the faculty comments on this survey. The majority of faculty comments regarding the President's performance were positive, and many of them contained high praise. Common concerns included placing interest in the Quad Cities campus and the Performing Arts Center above the needs of the existing Macomb campus. The condition of our buildings was a prime issue, appearing in numerous comments. Many respondents were concerned about increasing the number of administrative positions, while also reflecting a lack of confidence in those administrators.

The President's relationship with the Provost and with other administrators was a recurring theme. While some indicated that the President and Provost work well together, the greater number of comments indicated that the relationship appeared less effective. In addition, some comments indicated that the President might not be fully aware of what was happening further down the administrative chain. There was concern that what was expressed at the top administrative level might be changed or differently interpreted as it moved down the administrative hierarchy, or that it would not make it down to the faculty at all.

In terms of academics, common concerns included whether academic standards were raised in practice, or whether the standards were raised on paper only. Multiple comments addressed increasing numbers of students without additional resources to serve them. Some faculty members indicate the perception that the administration thinks having more students is preferable to having better students, and the perception that overall student quality is declining.