McDavis, Krendl fare poorly in latest survey by faculty group
By Jim Phillips
May 31, 2007
For the most part, three top Ohio University administrators did even worse in a faculty survey this year than they did in a similar poll in 2006, according to a news release by the faculty group that ran the poll.
The OU chapter of the American Association of University Professors announced the results yesterday of a survey of faculty at the Athens and regional campuses. The poll sought professors' views on President Roderick McDavis, Provost Kathy Krendl and Vice President Charles Bird, who heads up the regional campuses.
Group I and II faculty who took part in the survey responded to the same set of six statements about each of the three administrators, including a general "vote of confidence" statement. For each statement, respondents could agree, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree.
A total of 567 professors (471 from Athens, 96 from regional campuses) filled out the survey. This represents more than 48 percent of all Group I and II faculty. Group I are tenure-track faculty, while Group II are long-time instructors who hold part-time appointments.
Last year, 529 faculty members participated in the survey.
On the confidence issue, McDavis's numbers went up slightly for those who agreed that he earned faculty confidence with his performance in the last year. In 2006, 12.5 percent of respondents agreed with this statement, while in the latest survey, 13.1 percent agreed.
The numbers went up much more dramatically in the bottom "disagree" category as well, however. Where 46 percent of respondents in 2006 gave McDavis the worst lack-of-confidence vote, that number was up to 57 percent this time.
Krendl lost ground in this category as well, with those expressing confidence ("agree") dropping from 17.1 percent to 16.8 percent, and those expressing no confidence ("disagree") jumping from 33.3 percent to 45.5 percent.
Bird's numbers, which were worse than Krendl's and McDavis's in this category, continued low. Those who agreed he deserved confidence dropped from a low 10.3 percent into single digits, at 6.3 percent. The percentage of his strongest critics in the bottom category dropped somewhat, but only from a very high 69 percent to a still-high 67.7 percent.
Other topics covered by the survey included, budgeting, transparency and shared governance, and academic standards.
In most of them, the three administrators lost ground, though McDavis showed some improvement on the question of how well he "sought broad and meaningful consultation with faculty" before making big decisions affecting academic programs or faculty working conditions.
In this category, the president's "agree" numbers went up from 8.1 to 10.2 percent, while his "disagree" numbers dropped from 56.8 to 54.6 percent.
Journalism professor Joe Bernt, who serves as secretary for the AAUP chapter, said he believes the survey results show, among other things, a general skepticism among faculty for the promise of a recently announced reorganization, in which McDavis will concentrate more on fundraising and lobbying, and Krendl will take on more duties relating to academics.
"It's kind of a referendum on what the trustees are trying to do, in terms of doing something about the situation without doing anything about it," he said.
Bernt noted that the issue of salary and benefits seems to be one of the main drivers of dissatisfaction with the top OU brass.
One statement on the survey declares that the administrator in question has, though his (or her) actions and decisions, maintained the salaries and benefits of OU faculty compared to other state schools in Ohio and peer institutions.
For McDavis, the percentage of respondents who agreed with this stayed the same as it was in 2006 - only 6.1 percent. The percentage who disagreed went up from 59.3 to 66.5.
The story was not quite as bad for Krendl, who went up from her 2006 level of 6 percent in the "agree" category to 7.5 percent. Her "disagree" numbers also went up notably, however, from 51.6 to 59.6 percent.
"For many faculty on this campus, salaries are not going to keep up with inflation," Bernt predicted. "Especially when you steal a bunch of (their raises) back through health-care costs."
He noted that even among respondents who otherwise expressed support for McDavis and Krendl, "on the salary and benefits issue, the numbers shifted" toward a more negative response.
After the 2006 poll, supporters of the administration questioned whether the number of faculty who responded were a big enough sampling to be meaningful. Bernt said a response of over 48 percent should definitely be given some weight, and should send a wake-up call to administrators and trustees.
"You can't run a university and have any credibility if you ignore what 567 of the faculty of that university said," he maintained. "The emperor has no clothes any more. These people just aren't credible to a large proportion of the faculty."
Contacted Wednesday for comment on the survey results, OU spokeswoman Sally Linder reported that McDavis was out of state, and that she did not know if he would want to comment on the poll.
Linder pointed out that the OU Trustees are currently in the process of doing an in-depth evaluation of the president's performance, which includes input from groups including faculty and students.
The AAUP survey comes on the heels of three recent evaluations of the McDavis administration, one by Student Senate, another by Graduate Student Senate, and a third by Faculty Senate. McDavis fared worst in the Student Senate evaluation, garnering a 78 percent no-confidence vote in the Senate election May 17. McDavis fared better in the other two surveys, but still garnered heavy negatives among respondents.
Last year, after the AAUP survey results were released, several critics came forward and charged that the survey was poorly done. At the time, Jessie Roberson, an associate professor of management systems, remarked, "It's actually kind of embarrassing that this is the type of thing they're trying to sell as an evaluation tool."
In addition, Michael Williford, associate provost for institutional research and enrollment planning, said at time that the survey questions were "loaded, biased and not well constructed... There's an honest evaluation process and there's this."
Yesterday, neither Williford nor associate professor Jessie Roberson, who also criticized last year's survey, could be reached for comment on the latest AAUP survey.
Comments
Please log in to post a comment.
