Faculty Survey

Report on the Survey Results Regarding Faculty Perceptions of
Transparency, Openness and Confidence
Jim Whitehead
Tom Petros
Kim Kenville
Jim Higgins
June 5, 2015
1|Page
Overall Survey Metrics:

Number of respondents: 386
Number of Faculty: 807 (Fall 2014)
Response rate: 47.83%
Collection Method: Online (email-invite only) via Qualtrics

Survey Timeline: Started ???? Completed ????
2|Page
Office of the President

Office of the President Transparency
8%
8%
20%
14%
16%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
34%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the President is about decision-making on matters
of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments
below:
Actually I blame most decision-making that affects faculty on the Office of the VP, but since the P
hired him...
Based on my past experience, UND feels like working for a big, sterile corporation now. A far cry
from what it used to be, where we all truly felt like a family. I think this started with Dr. Kupchella's
administration and has been taken to dangerous new highs (or lows) with Dr. Kelley. Dr. Kelley has
been largely invisible the past 12+ months and the reigns have, apparently, been handed over to
Provost DiLorenzo, a man who inspires zero confidence or concensus at any institution at which he
has administered. Morale on this campus is hitting rock bottom and the President is 100%
responsible.
decisions are made and them faculty are told. There is no discussion regarding issues, processes for
decision making in terms of shared governance
Faculty has hardly any voice in core administarative matters. In this there is fault of faulty too. They
are not very assertive.
feels like a business model with no faculty input
I don't feel the President has much of an idea about what is happening on campus and why faculty
are upset. He needs to find out.
I think that the administration thinks they are transparent, but nobody but the administrators seems to
know what is going on.
I'll give one example of the lack of transparency: The Fine Arts and Humanities have been
"removed" from the VP of Research Office. We are the only units on campus that this happened to.
No formal announcement was made, there was no vote, and no discussion. We still as a group have
3|Page
never been informed. We have no idea why this was done or what this means for our future. I found
out about this by accident. No explanations have been given.
It appears that decisions are made without consultation with appropriate faculty committees having
knowledge of the decision or reasons for making decisions.
It is not clear what the president does. For example, what was the outcome from his leave of absence
for a whole month?
It seems that the president has abdiicstrd all responsibility and brought in a provost to make hard
decisions on his behalf
Looks like the President is leaving most decision making to his VPs who don't seem competent
My perception is that the president has disengaged from the university and relinquished all decision
making to the provost.
Other than the decision to overuse the word "Exceptional", I have no idea what decisions are being
made by the President.
The (inelegant) phrase I hear most often from others regarding this issue is that faculty feel that they
are treated as mushrooms-kept in the dark and fed . . . . In all my years at UND, I have not
experienced so much "secrecy" on the part of administrators as I havce with the current president
and provost. I assume there is a reason for this, for example, announcing major changes or decisions
at the end of the academic year-when faculty are scattering and unlikey to resist, question, or even
hear about what is being done.
The Administration speaks about transparency, but it is simply lip service.
The Kupchella Administration was very good about seeking faculty input - - esoecially when faculty
were directly involved. Much different than this President and Provost.
The transparency of the president relates directly to the transparency of the staff.
There have been several campus issues that were covered up or hushed up involving deaths,
shootings, rape, not to mention systems changes, budget changes, and tuition alterations.
There is a tendency to talk the talk, but not walk the talk.... When they are caught... they avoid, hide
under vagueness, or outright lie. Only when they are caught do they then backtrack and concede,
and offer to be transparent.
There is no discussion - or discussions are token discussions to provide artificial evidence that
faculty were involved in the process.
We typically receive an email directing us to a website that does not really communicate concrete
and specific ideas.
without investigative reporting we would have no knowledge at all about what is happening at UND.
re: nickname domain names list that did not exist until a freedom of information request was taken to
the attorney general
About the only time I see an email or announcement from the president is when he is indicates he is
sad someone died. Otherwise, he provides no direct communication to faculty.
Both decision-making processes and results are poorly communicated.
I do not believe that the Office of President (or the Provost) has been transparent about a number of
things. It seems, correctly or not, that there is a course of action being pursed that has not been
effectively communicated to the faculty and staff at large.
I feel as though we are notified after decisions have already been made.
I feel like I've barely heard from or seen the President since Provost DiLorenzo was hired. Prior to
the Provost's arrival on campus, I felt that President Kelley was open to conversations with faculty,
cared about what they were doing, and generally involved with campus.
4|Page
I feel the president is disconnected from faculty and decisions about faculty -- I think the President is
not informed of policy changes and actions taken at the Provost's level. So, really, transparency is
not really an issue at the President's level because he has nothing to share (he doesn't seem to make
decisions)
I rarely hear from the President's office until decisions are made, or more often, consultants are
hired.
I think the administration has been focusing a lot of attention on "communication," by which they
mean finding ways to alert us to their decisions. The problem is transparency isn't about informing
us after the fact; it's more about giving real opportunity to see the process at work and give timely
and genuine feedback.
It feels as if much power has been ceded to the Provost, and the President has less of a presence in
the past two years.
Many examples, but most recently, why was an internal search conducted for the Graduate School
Dean? What is the long-term plan for Graduate education? Given the propensity for outside
consultants in every other major adm position search, this is odd. Not transparent.
Please be more present. Consider using video to communicate with faculty via email.
President Kelleys decision making appears to be on one wasteful topic. He seems obsessed about
the Sioux logo more so than academic and research matters which are more important to this
university. Its embarrassing. I was fine when we stopped using the logo as Kelley himself said our
athletic teams would compete just as hard as The University of North Dakota. I agreed. Then I
hear him on a radio newscast saying We need to change the name. I feel harassed like I am some
bad person or a racist if I happen to wear some clothing with a logo on it and I want him to stop. I
want him to move on to more important University issues! He is pandering to a small vocal group of
people. I feel bullied. If Kelley truly is so concerned about Native American issues have him explain
why in ND it only takes 4 percent of the population to bring a constitutional initiative to a vote of the
people but when 12 percent of the people on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation (1000 signatures
out of 8200 population) sign a petition and get cut off at the knees, when presenting the petition to
the council, he doesnt care. Kelly needs to be someone who helps enable the faculty and staff to
conduct research and education and make that his number one priority. He also should have more
oversight on his VPs.
The Office of the President seems to be extremely removed from students and faculty - I get the
impression that it operates like a medieval lord: benevolent, but unable to truly grasp what is actually
goin on in the lives of the peasants, and thus ultimately making/enabling/delegating disastrous
decisions.
The President is, at heart I think, well-meaning, but he has placed too much trust in his VPs and they
are allowing him to believe that all is well on campus when it is not. He is relying on them to be
transparent and responsive when in fact they (particularly the Provost) is being negligent and nonresponsive.
These remarks apply to many of the following questions as well. The university appears to be
chronically short of money, which is understandable, given the financial problems of higher ed
generally. What isn't very clear is where the money is spent. In particular, considerable resources
seem to be devoted to public relations and athletics, but questions, particularly concerning the latter,
are in my experience met with evasive answers by administrators, such as the move to Div I
"increaes visibility." There's not a shred of convincing evidence that money spent on sports in any
5|Page
way benefits academics, and may have a negative effect because of the wasted financial resources.
In a nutshell, I'd like to know what the balance sheet looks like regarding the impact on the UND
budget of funds devoted to athletics.
things just seem to happen. When major decisions are made, they should only be made after lots of
open discussion. My impression is that that is not the way things operate around here. Furthermore,
there seems to be a lot of indecision and delay, and then BAM action is taken. Planning appears
absent.
This president is not very transparent at all. Most decisions seem to be made behind closed doors
without discussion or input from the university community. It appears he leaves such matters to his
provost and cadre of vice-presidents. They are even worse than the president as far as transparency
goes. Lip service is paid to shared governance at University Senate meetings. Since the threat of
no-confidence from students, there is even more lip service about openness and transparency. Where
was this president while these issues were developing? President Kelly is asleep at the switch.
Too many administrators!
We just get the glossy cover version
What is said and what is often done are vastly different.
When the President does speak about university operations, it is ambiguous management speech.
Thus, it postures as transparency, but covers up the exact details of university operations as if either
the faculty are not intelligent enough to understand it, or there is something to hide. Why, for
instance, are the budgets not distributed to the faculty so we know exactly how the money is being
spent?
of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
As much as any university is likely to be.

I believe in the president & his intentions for the university, but I don't believe that this has
necessarily transferred to his provost. There may be too little oversight.
I THINK (not feel) that they are very transparent with some things and not as transparent with
others.
I'm not privy to many of the decisions made, because I don't attend meetings (I am non-TT)
It's hard to know for sure. I suspect that the president is more invested in cheerleading and dealing
with the legislature, while the provost is controlling everything else -- mostly with an almost total
lack of transparency
Regarding the incident where the student president called for a vote of no confidence, the email
response from the president was insufficient. I had no idea what was happening or why.
The president has allowed the provost to have too much power over decisions that impact faculty
and directors and deans in negative ways. I don't necessarily fault Kelley for lack of transparency, I
do think he needs to pay much more attention to the damage being done to UND the provost.
of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
6|Page
I feel that the majority of decisions comes from the Provost and that the President has become
less involved.
Lack's Transparency
President Kelly has never been anything but straight forward and honest with any dealing I have
had with him. I think he is exceptional, and I very much value him, his experience, insight, and
leadership. I also think that President Kelly has the best interest of the university at heart. I feel
the exact opposite about the Provost however. He has never been straight forward or honest in
any dealing I have had with him. I perceive him to be a politician out for his own good. The
Provost is consistently terrible at communicating as demonstrated by the rumor mill that
continues to be the only source of information for the university and strategic reprioritization (I
still dont know what that is or means) and the recent debacle with tuition. When he does speak I
feel it is only in half-truths at best. He always seems to have a personal agenda, and he never
shares his whole vision. I have no idea what his vision is, and I am incredibly distrustful of
anything he says or does, especially with his drive for an administratively-heavy university.
The question is too vague and needs to specify a decision to consider.
With so many constraints from Higher Ed Board I feel that Pres Kelly makes us aware of what we
He has involved staff in multiple topics (e.g. picking a name, Senate, strategic planning, etc.
I feel like they give us the information they think we need and that we have time to use.
Honestly, I'm afraid that some people equate "transparency" with decision making. We get plenty
of information from the Presidents' office. We don't make decisions, but that's another issue.
I feel that the Office of the President is quite transparent. I don't think the creators of this survey
are.
If anything, the President has been TOO transparent in his decision making.
Information is out there to find. Communication happens. Among the unbelievable amount of
information that flows my way, it often gets lost.
President Kelley, his administrative board and his staff do a solid job of keeping the campus
community in the loop. I am comfortable with the current level of reporting and have had no
trouble finding specific information when I ask for it.
The president has been so involved with other issues that he has given too much power to the new
provost
of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
How transparent is he supposed to be? if he put out a query every time he had to make a decision
he would get nothing done.
I don't feel I've been here long enough to have an opinion on this
I don't recall, but is that because the President is not being transparent or I just missed the
message?
I really don't hear anything about the president. I know when I am out in the community people
ask why they don't hear anything about this president.
I really don't know what decisions have been made, so don't really have a basis to comment
It depends. Some agenda items there is a lot of info very early. The timing and quality of
information varies
7|Page
Office of the President Open
12%
7% 13%
18%
30%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
20%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the President is in providing accurate and timely
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not
Very added the comments below:
Communications have generally been in response to individuals expressing concern about the
lack of communication; this is neither timely nor efficient. As far as accuracy goes, it is difficult
to even assess the status of accuracy when we are left to draw our own conclusions about a
number of different policies affecting faculty.
I hear about what is happening third or fourth hand. Then it changes and there is a new directive.
I would describe the President as "exceptionally" unopen.
I'll give another example: The Conflict Resolution Center was removed from campus. There was
no vote, no transparency, and no faculty discussion. We literally woke up one day and found out
that this office does not exist. The Conflict Resolution Center was a valuable resource on campus
that we desperately need. Now it's gone.
Information is sent out after decisions are made. This process creates a climate of uncertainty and
even fear regarding major changes within the university in terms of funding, job security, tenure
and promotion, etci.
Only open when he has to be (when he feels some "heat", otherwise he hides in the shadow. Feel
also he is manipulative and tries to appear like he's trying to work on things collaboratively. His
numerous emails feel manipulative. They always come out after things appear to be getting
tense, as if to appease. Don't trust him.
Other than tooting "exceptionality" that office hardly ever communicates with the faculty. Seen
communiques from? Except when his hand is forced to do so.
This is getting better after the recent events, but again, the problem lies with his immediate direct
reports
Timely information? You never hear about anything here until after the fact. All this president
has to offer is meaningless marketing slogans exceptional UND.
We are not part of the decision making, therefore, we don't rate as to getting information
8|Page
Were any conclusions ever drawn after the President's study of tenure?
What is up with our budget? We received a dollar increase in year over year monies, but we do
not have funding to continue doing what we did last year?
Again, the President seems completely out of touch with faculty and student needs. I don't think
it's that he intends to be secretive. I just don't think he's aware of how things are going in the
departments and with students. By making it clear that he is not receptive to anyone "going over
the head" of the Provost (and by not providing any mechanism to check the Provost's actions) he
makes it impossible for people to communicate concerns to him.
Again, there has been a dramatic shift in openness since the arrival of Provost DiLorenzo.
Again, through the Provost, restructuring and personel decisions have been made with no faculty
input. I've heard multiple times how WONDERFUL life will be when the new budget model
becomes operative and departments get back money to do their jobs. There has been no clarity on
how success will be counted. For example, will departments of a second major get credit for that
student's tuition. I fear not. I fear that on the whole, departments will get back less than they do
now (do more with less, again). I also see program directors who have been long-time
contributors to the success of UND programs "set up to fail" by changing their job descriptions.
Or even worse, set up to fail, as they are told to "vision" and figure out (what the Provost thinks)
they need to do to make their programs better. And always come up with a plan which requires
no new resources because those will NOT be forthcoming.
Cursory at best. No details. Must find out things via secondary sources.
I really don't hear much about the President-- it seems to me he has others doing the work and the
information comes from others rather than from him
I think the Office is open to it, but the communication is not accurate or timely.
I try to keep abreast of matters affecting faculty, yet I often learn, maybe from colleagues who
have an inside source, about decisions affecting me. I hear frequently, especially from staff
(Chester Fritz Library for example) that they are completely in the dark about decisions that will
affect them.
Information is not timely in the sense that it is post hoc.
It seems that the Office of the President shirks this responsibility by passing the buck to the
Provost's Office. But the fact that there have been many openly expressed concerns about the
Provost's office that have not been adequately responded to by the Office of the President, it
essentially prevents faculty from open, timely, access to vital matters.
Openness is not the cup of tea I have seen in any administration.
There must be some budget discussion s going on in this legislative year and it seems that there is
much less public conversation it discussion of such issues than there has been in the past.
This Office is clearly not engaged with faculty in a meaningful manner and certainly does not mix
well with faculty. President Kelley is a CEO-style president not a grass roots president, hence he
does not have the pulse of his faculty.
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the
comments below:
9|Page
Can't make a certain rating. I suspect that the president doesn't always know what the provost is
doing. Of course, he should, and hopefully the results of this survey will make him aware that he
should pay closer attention.
Is the Provost running UND?
OK. The Pres does tell faculty what is going on. Unfortunately, it is often too late for faculty to
provide input.
Once the decisions are made, we usually hear about them.
The office of the Provost seems to be the agent of change. Input to these activities may be more
timely. How much is the president involved in these decisions is unclear.
The president doesn't seem to be very involved on campus anymore. If you're not visible or
available then you don't appear open.
The provost has too much power, and the faculty are not included in decisions. Only a patina of
transparency exists. Saying he is transparent (the provost) does not make it so. I know I and
many faculty feel the president is taking a "hand off" approach in anything the provost does. That
may not be so, but it certainly feels that way.
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very
added the comments below:
ditto
does the best he can its a big job
I do not have a problem with the "openness" of the President. I put "very" to accentuate the low
expectations I have of the Office. The President should be removed from the day-to-day issues.
Fosus on vision and progress toward that vision, including fundraising. The President does that.
I see to hear about things pretty quickly, especially when there is a UND community loss of an
individual or a threat to safety.
I think they are willing to have the conversation
In my experience, the President has been very timely in responding to concerns and has always
provided accurate information
Information is provided, but heavy workloads interfere with information gathering.
Recently the President has gathered information about the discontent with the Provost
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the
comments below:
again, haven't experienced any communications regarding faculty concerns to the general faculty
populous
I don't think I've received much correspondence in the short time I've been here. That could mean
there hasn't been anything important to communicate, or it could mean that the OotP is not
forthcoming.
10 | P a g e
It depends on the source. The office of the President I trust. Unfortunately, I think that all too
often the President leaves much of the communication to the Provost. Here is where things seem
to break down. Last year we received regular things to know updates after a moderate uproar
over the strategic reprioritization rumor mill. Those no longer happen, and the rumor mill is
up and running in fine fashion once again. The students clearly feel left out of the conversation
about tuition models. I am unclear where this information should originate. We have lots of new
administrators, but I dont see or know who does what, and I think this is a problem. The
interactions I have had with the president have been fair, equitable conversations. The dealings I
have had with the Provost have been authoritative, dictatorship-style interactions where he has
made it clear that he is not interested in my thoughts or opinions, he has his mind made up, and
my choice is to go along with his decision quietly without any explanation, or leave. I dont trust
that at all because it seems like my thoughts are not valued, and I am merely expected to buy into
a personal, private agenda which I have come to distrust tremendously.
The President has always been timely with concerns and requests and I have no issues with him. I
think he is very open and the best President we have ever had.
It depends again. Sometimes completely open, other times seems less open or I may not be in the
conversation where he is open.
11 | P a g e
Confidence in the Office of the President
21%
1% 12%
23%
20%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
23%
Question: Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the Office of the President: Those whose
ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Aware of too many situations that into question the integity and credibility of not only this
President but other senior administrators in this administration.
I am exceptionally confident that this president will continue to do nothing.
I do not feel as though faculty are valued as colleagues to upper administration.
I do not see leadership.
I have lost confidence in this President, this Provost, and his appointed cronies.
I have served under five UND presidents and the current one is by far the least open, the least
effective, the least forthcoming of all-showing very little accomplishment for the years spent in
the office
I say this because he allows DiLorenzo to run the show and is fine with him being the "bad guy",
because he is afraid to take a stand... rather spineless
I'm sorry to say this. Personally I like and respect Dr. and Marcia Kelley. They have exhibited
tremndous restraint and leadership through the logo debate. But again, it now appears that
President Kelley has granted all authority to the Provost who is running the instituition and its
faculty and staff into the ground.
It's hard to have confidence in a President that allows his Provost and Deans to conduct business
as they do without regard for faculty and students.
President Kelley needs to refrain from padding his retirement savings and travelling on UND's
time and announce his retirement immediately. He has been an ineffective and indicisive leader
during his tenure and UND needs to move on. This is evidenced by his obsession with the
nickname issue. I am not necessarily a supporter of the previous nickname. However, with all of
the other issues and decisions facing this campus, he has chosen to make this is legacy platform,
despite strong opinions from alumni, faculty, staff, and students to stay simply North Dakota.
This demonstrates a pattern of not listening that has plagued his entire administration.
12 | P a g e
Retired in office several years ago, leaving an incompetent Provost in charge

The President has let the University down by allowing vice presidents to run amok without any
accountability.
There has been little leadership in supporting faculty and our contributions to UND.
As much as I would like to have confidence in the Office of the President, I cannot. This is
because: 1) it continually fails to generate increased state funds to support our educational
mission (this at a time when state revenues are the highest in its history); 2) the hiring practices
related to adminstrative highers, which this office ultimately has oversight, is overtly corrupt; and
3) while using the catch phrase "liberal arts" education, the funding allocations and overall
emphasis of the message coming from the Office of the President is decidely myopically in favor
of the technical sciences.
I don't think he is a very good leader. He needs to present a vision and sell it. That is his #1 job.
INstead he seems all over the place. And key decisions are punted down to the Provost who does
a very very poor job of running the show.
I feel that the President is well meaning, and personally I like him. However, he has very little
visibility on campus, and I feel that the Provost is allowed to do what he wants, with little or no
oversight.
I just don't see president Kelley taking clear actions on behalf if the UND community. If he is
doing anything, he needs to publicize it
I would like to give Kelly the benefit of the doubt, but he must accept blame for the sad state of
UND. Ive served under three presidents and have never seen morale so low. Good people are
looking to leave, if they havent already been shown the door. Long time employees escorted out
by university police? What signal does that send to UND employees? Who thinks that is good
HR policy? UND is in trouble, and the buck stops with the president.
It seems as if president is disengaged on what has been happening on campus the last two years.
Felt times he is needed to reign in the VPs. Too much change too quickly that was not needed
It seems as if, from my vantage point, the President has relinquished his job of running the
university to the Provost. He now mainly seems to fund raise, talk to the legislature, and give
opening remarks at various functions. His role in creating a vision and agenda for the University
now rests squarely with the Provost.
just send disengaged, retired already
Leadership and communication has been very poor, and the quality of the university and its
reputation has declined significantly.
My main concern is that the office of the president is not particularly overseeing the activities of
the office of the provost.
My rating of "not very" confident would shift dramatically if I believed that President Kelley
were actually running the University again, which I do not believe is the case at the present
moment...again, UND is in the hands of the Provost.
Right now a placeholder who is making poor hiring decisions.
The present office has no vission and lacks the ability to lead.
While the Office of the President gives lip service to caring about the arts and humanities, the
rhetoric is not backed up by practice. Most alarmingly is the lack of new hires in Arts and
Sciences as it pertains to humanities and the arts. Building maintenance is another huge problem.
13 | P a g e
Heating, cooling, and basic technology (that I use to teach with) is not at all adequate in O'Kelly
Hall.
ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Had lots of confidence, but the logo issue seems to have drained him, and he's been much less
visible / active the last few years. It's part of his job to be aware of what a douche the provost is,
and it doesn't seem like he is.
He needs to reign in the Provost. The Provost is ruining the university.
High confidence in the President's local operations. Low confidence in the President's ability to
advocate for UND at higher levels.
I believe that the president has simply lost his way and needs to remember whom he serves;
students.
I know little about where the President stands. It's the Provost who concerns me.
I operate at a different level than most faculty in this manner, hence I have had different
conversations with the President. I think he has surrounded himself with some very questionable
administrators and that is a significant issue. Further, not being willing to deal with the debacle
that is the SMHS is a significant detractor in my level of confidence.
I want to believe he has the best interest of the University at heart, but at some point, one begins
to wonder.
It's hard to know for sure whether the current faculty concerns are a result of problems in the
president's office, or because of the provost.
My confidence was previously high in the Office of the President, but that office seems now to
defer more to the Office of the Provost.
This is a difficult question because ultimately the President is responsible for all the problems we
have had. He has to take serious action on the two key VPs - academica nd student affairs as these
two seem to be using scare tactics by firing people and not threatening to not renew contracts.
The question is how much does the President know? Does he approve of the way these two are
acting?
ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
Don't really know what this office is accomplishing, I don't get direct communications
I have always liked President Kelly and appreciate that the logo issue is more or less behind us.
But I feel he has been so absent in 2014-15 and the Provost is out doing things faculty resent and
feel powerless to deal with. It feels like a mismatch with how President Kelly would do things
but without his presence, we (I) must assume the President is approving of things like an internal
and sudden search for a Graduate Dean.
I still have faith that if the President were aware of all the problems and concerns on campus, he
would act. I have confidence in him -- but not in his leadership team. They are working on behalf
of their own careers, not on behalf of the institution or the people in it.
I think the general vision and direction are sound.
14 | P a g e
My rating would be higher if Kelley became more aware of the provost's calculated decisions to
expunge perfectly good people. The president, to gain faculty trust, needs to gather information
from faculty/departments/programs to see the damage that has been done and continues to be
done, and then act accordingly. The president's job requires so many things, but the most
important is to make sure student and faculty needs are heard and inasmuch as possible
addressed.
Once an issue arises the President seems willing to make amends but there should be some
attention to getting the pulse from the faculty before things become major issues.
Dr. Kelly has been doing an excellent job. Especially given the very difficult situation he was
given due to the inept prior administration.
I really like President Kelly and think his heart is in the right place. He has a complicated job
running a large university.
I really like President Kelly. He has integrity and strength
I think that Dr. Kelley does a great job navigating the treacherous (and treasonous) waters of
UND politics. He has my full support.
I think the President understands the role and responsibilities. Sometimes I would like earlier
consultation.
I trust the President. I am uncertain about parts of the overall plan UND currently seems to have
in play.
Please don't do a vote of no-confidence.
The president needs to take supervise the provost's actions more closely
ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
I really have no idea---- he does not have a presence at the University

I am confident in the President, I am not confident in the Provost. I have tremendous confidence
in my Dean, and many of the other administrators around campus whom I deal with.
Most faculty in my college/department fear for their jobs!
15 | P a g e
Office of the Provost

Office of the Provost Transparency
4% 6%
8%
7%
48%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
27%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Provost is about decision-making on matters of
concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments
below:
A lot of bad changes have happened that no one knows why...loss of conflict resolution center,
first year seminar program, Dean of graduate school, director of library, director of international
center, scholarships...the list is never ending. I am not opposed to change if it makes sense and
has been well communicated as to the need
Absolute top down
As stated before, decisions are made without appropriate faculty committees being involved or
notified. The best examples are that the search for Grad Dean was decided upon before the
committee was ever put into place and the Compensation Committee was never consulted about
the new form.
At a recent meeting we were told the Provost is "the decider" and didn't want faculty on a search
committee to rank the candidates since the Provost would decide who to hire. This isn't the least
bit transparent.
Both decision-making processes and results are cloaked in the anonymity of committees and
expensive hired consultants, and are poorly communicated. I would actually feel better if he made
a decisive action and explained his reasoning, even if it was unpopular.
Change agents, acting by themselves, cause fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). Change agents
acting with a clear vision and mission and communicating such vision and mission are often met
with greater support. So, a recommendation is buried in this comment.
Communications have generally been in response to individuals expressing concern about the
lack of communication; this is neither timely nor efficient. As far as accuracy goes, it is difficult
16 | P a g e
to even assess the status of accuracy when we are left to draw our own conclusions about a
number of different policies affecting faculty.
Decisions are being made - from the most consequential (dean searches, consultants, etc) to even
the most trivial (formatting of forms for phased retirement) without meaningful input or, in some
cases, without public disclosure
Decisions are handed down. We need you to do this, any comments? No, good now do it because
you don't have any comments, you clearly want to do it!
Decisions are made at the President and Provost level. Any discussions are secondary and done
only to satisfy the perception of discussion.
Decisions trickle down through the ranks. It is never clear who made a decision or the reason(s)
for it. Plus, public positions and implementation are inconsistent.
don't trust him
Fire him immediately. This university's morale has been destroyed since he arrived. He is a bully,
arrogant, & autocratic and wants change fast... He will step on anyone to do what he wants. He
has created an environment of fear at UND.
he hardly speaks to faculty. will pass you on the street and not speak.
He lies about library issues, budget issues, and I do not trust him or Steven Lightat all.
He seems slimy, has been responsible for the problems with the Dean hire at the Aerospace
College, library, firing of the Graduate Dean who has done a tremendous job - there are many
more examples. He has a bad history in his previous jobs - why do we even have him here? HIs
office several people with fancy titles, but is run most inefficiently as we have seen with the
phased retirement policy implementation and other issues. There are people in his office who
were hired without an open advertisement and with no credentials.
I believe that the Provost has his own agenda and caused a great deal of angst with faculty and
staff. Many are fearful to ask for more transparency.
I don't know anyone who trusts him
I don't know whether the Provost is dishonest, forgetrful, wishy washy, or just doesn't have a
clue! But, lots of decisions are made in camera. Lots of actions are taken without them really
being announced or discussed, but many of the actions affect UND faculty, students, and staff in
significant ways. Also, there are lots of huge initiatives, like SOAR, the new budget model,
enrolment mangement, etc., that are all moving forward at the same time and it all is a big mixed
up mess that takes too much of everyone's time.
I have attended several meetings at which the provost spoke and his comments and assurances do
not ring true. I do not feel that his word can be trusted. Words, but contrary acts.
I have had a few interactions with the Provost over the past several years and have found him to
be 'slppery' and not dependable
In all my years at UND I have never experienced a provosst who has no transparency and who is
doing so much damage.
In my opinion Provost DiLorenzo is trying to build an empire and take decision making away
from deans, chairpersons, and faculty/staff. When DiLorenzo first arrived he spoke to many
groups on campus to learn about each unit. He initially gave me hope that he would help facilitate
activities for research proposal writing and education methodologies. I dont feel DiLorenzo is
helping to enable faculty and staff to conduct their work on their own accord. I feel he is
centralizing the university power structure to answer to him on all activities. He seems to be
17 | P a g e
acquiring control, by hiring his own staff to oversee deans and chairpersons and is taking the
power of decision making away. He himself needs to take responsibility to work with colleges
and departments to collaborate rather than adding to his own staff for control and micro
management.
In the 15 years I've been here, I've never seen such a climate of fear in faculty due to perceived
capriciousness and absolute power of the Office of the Provost. Yes, faculty are sometimes
"consulted" and required to serve on committees and prepare reports, but I have not seen evidence
of their hours of work and expertise actually being considered in the final decision making.
Most matters involving "transparency" are treated as potential public relations issues.
My Dean has even expressed that they are not being involved in decisions.
Not at all see previous comments. He failed at his last position and seems intend on trying the
same things here. I'm weary or the way he ignores and sometimes abuses the many talented
faculty and administrators at UND. Full speed ahead with his vision which failed already
somewhere else.
Not at all. I do not trust anything the Provost says or does. The interactions I have had with him
have been terrible, leading me to feel that he speaks only in half-truths at best. He is not
interested in hearing others opinions and I feel that voicing any opinion when it does not agree
with him could be dangerous. The interactions I have had with him resemble those of an
authoritarian dictator. I never know what his goals, objectives, or visions really are, and I feel
that he expects me to follow his leadership blindly. That leadership often seems to be filled with
personal agenda, and I have no idea where the ship is really headed under his leadership.
Provost DiLorenzo is completely untrustworthy.
Quite simply, the Office of the Provost intentionally obscures information and effectively
disempowers faculty governance. Since his arrival, he has isolated himself from faculty in any
substantive fashion (his informal breakfasts, etc. are placebos to genuine faculty involvement).
There is a small group of adminstrators and faculty he uses as a buffer, as well as paid consultant
firms to do the dirty work. In truth, faculty, especially the senior faculty who consistently seek
election on faculty senate and other such positions, have been negligent in their duties, thus
allowing this situation to worsen. That this survey is only being conducted now, for instance, and
uses such week language as "feel" instead of asking what faculty "think" or "know" based on
evidence and logical reasoning, is proof of point. Much damage has been done, some of which
cannot be repaired even under the best of situations. There shoud be a vote of no confidence in
the entire system.
Read the comments about the president.
Recently the provost has appeared before chairs and directors, so I've felt a little more informed.
In general, I feel that holding searches for associate VPs only through the Provost's office makes
it impossible for faculty/staff to have clear representation in these searches. I find the interview
sessions to be insufficient representation. I don't value the proliferation of administrative
positions at this institution, because I cannot perceive how the roles serve UND, and there is no
effort to clarify why another associate vp is needed. I do see changes that have harmed arts and
humanities programs, like the loss of truly open houses in order to fit the programs into the
Gorecki. Yes there is a need to use the space, but now students can't browse, which has directly
harmed programs that rely on exposure for attracting majors. I wish this box were larger.
Regarding again the search issue, I feel like these Provost led searches are a maneuver to allow
18 | P a g e
the Provost to have searches occur in the summer when faculty will be away. Even if that is not
the intent, the lack of communication or involvement of faculty creates this perception. If it is his
intent, I don't think he should be leading searches for administrative positions in his own office.
REPEAT: NOT AT ALL I have never experienced such a rapid agenda from a Provost and no
lead time. For example, suddenly there are going to be changes to the Phased Retirement plans or
policies--not lead time. Faculty need to have time to provide input. We are BUSY and must
work in commitments but these are so sudden, there is just no time to contribute.
Tells people what they want to hear so they leave him alone. Is doing here what he did at UAB,
hiring admins without replacing faculty
The provost (and his veeps) are only transparent when forced. Getting a straight answer out of
the provost is like trying to lasso a wisp of smoke.
The Provost feels faculty governance is a joke. He makes unilateral decisions and only tells us
after the fact.
The Provost has an odd set of hidden agendas. At best, the office is silent/unapproachable, at
worst it is a source of stress & outright lies.
The Provost is hiding behind smoke and mirrors and consultants.
The Provost shows one face to the President and outside constituents and another to faculty and
staff. His word cannot be trusted -- he says one thing in one meeting and something completely
different in another. He has made very questionable (even institutionally dangerous) decisions
regarding the Graduate Dean position, the ES Director position, and by gutting his office staff and
"replacing" them with higher-paid administrators who are ineffective and who actually have made
almost all work at the university incredibly difficult if not impossible. He says what he thinks
people want to hear and then does what he wants, passing it off as "faculty governance." He has
placed far too much responsibility and trust in individuals who are not capable (or choose not to)
do their jobs. Several important initiatives on campus are now foundering because of this
ineptitude. Never in my almost 20 years here has it been more difficult to get things
accomplished.
The Provost, along with the Office of the Provost, offers inconsistent information with regards to
policies, decision-making, new initiatives, etc. And, in my experience (I attended, for instance,
the Provost breakfast events this past semester), when asked directly to explain policies in
decision, the Provost and members of his office often appear to deflect and redirect inquiries,
offering instead platitudes and non-committal responses. I think this contributes to an atmosphere
of extreme anxiety among faculty which I, even though I've only been at UND for a year, have
observed on many occasions.
The provost's office seems to start a dozen new initiatives every week, with little information
about why these initiatives are needed or where the impetus for them in coming from. As with the
office of the president, it seems this office reports decisions (sometimes) after they have already
been made.
The weak link in the president's staff.
There has been so much dysfunction that has occurred since the arrival of the new Provost, I
frankly don't even know where to begin. My response would be a novel.
There is NO transparency about decision making at the provosts office. Decisions are made
among a select few administrators, behind the scenes. Then faculty is called to meetings to give
the APPEARANCE of transparency and openness to the process.
19 | P a g e
There is not only no transparency from the Office of the Provost, it seems like I hear a lot of
contradictions, and since they seem to be conscious, I have to assume that some of them might
simply lies. I don't know if the Office of the Provost tries to lie to me or if they just do not care
and are just trying to play political games, but then result is pretty much the same.
This is a concern of mine. A key example would be the decision for an internal search for the next
graduate Dean - why was this the case? Rumor has it that the Provost intends to dismantle the
graduate school, but this has never been directly addressed.
Vague illusions to practically all questions with no definitive answers.
We are only pawns on a large chess board.
We cannot get clear answers about expenditures from Provost's office, but we are supposed to
report every minutiae of our offices to him.
When asked for clarification regarding decisions clear, transparent answers are never given.
While we may receive email updates, they do not contain any real information and are often after
the actual decisions have been made. Moreover, they may not be truthful in the slightest, but
rather PR pieces, particularly because anyone who disagrees with the Provost seems to be fired,
demoted, or "retired" with disturbing frequency since his arrival.
A lot of conversation, but not a lot of input. A tour d'force is currently in operation.
Don't remember many communications from his office.
I have been very disappointed in the Provost and his office with regard to efficiency and effective
communication. I feel that on numerous occasions, the Provost has required additional work of
the faculty without concern to the extra time required of an already stretched group of folks.
It appears to me that he uses a top down approach-- I don't see that faculty are valued or included
on discussion on important topics that effect the faculty.
It depends on the issue. With regard to SGS, not at all.
Much like the President's Office, the concern from the Provost's Office seems to be in informing
the faculty of changes rather than relying on the faculty to really guide sensible change that
makes sense within our culture and constraints. He is keen to say that things are "faculty driven"
but this is all the illusion of democracy. Yes, faculty may sit on the committees, but the
committees are either powerless to make real decisions or they are tasked with selecting between
a narrow range of predetermined options.
New layers of bureaucracy (3 or 4 asso. provosts) make getting information back in a timely
manner difficult. Information does not seem to get to the Provost either. He came to speak to our
college and he was friendly and seemingly sincere in hearing our opinions. We appreciated that
effort (a first!) but more frequent, smaller get-togethers would work more towards a healthy
dialogue. The faculty resents hearing about initiatives that seeem to come out of nowhere. I think
the Provost is amenable to constructive criticism and flexible but he has put too many new plans
into place, with too many new associates and assistants. A natural result is cynicism among
faculty and a passive aggressiveness.
Only because the Provost has more contact with faculty via Dean's council etc.
See my comment under questions one.
See other answers, lack of grass roots will always lead to a very limited view of transparency. I
think the Office of the Provost is radically transparent, but in this case it is opaque.
20 | P a g e
The provost seems to have good ideas but his message changes depending on his audience. So
while I would like to believe he is being transparent and implementing positive change, his facile
resp
concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Transparency occurs after large-scale decisions are made. Initial stages, especially regarding
questions of whether a change should be made or not.
concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
It depends. When and how info and data are released is not consistent. We page has a lot of info
if I go there and look.
The Provost is a micromanager who can't always keep up with all that he wants to do, so he ends
up making some decisions without quite enough (in my opinion) consultation with the faculty.
The Provost provides many opportunities to the campus community to discuss initiatives.
Unfortunately, these sessions mostly consist of explaining the logistices of what is proposed
instead of the underlying reasons or the ultimate goals. Too often the presentations take the guise
of marketing a proposed change rather than discussing it.
To play devils advocate, I sometimes wonder if the Provost's office may feel that a vocal minority
of the faculty are opposed to anything the administration might do, so they make misguided
decisions to counter that.
Again, the President counts on a provost to lead so many areas, and our provost is not capable!
The Provost is very clear about his decision making. This is despite members of the faculty
continually misquoting him and attributing words to him that the Provost has never used.
concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
Don't know for sure. I really don't trust him. Something about him tells me that he doesn't always
tell the whole truth
21 | P a g e
Office of the Provost Openness
7%
6% 5%
41%
10%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
31%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Provost is in providing accurate and timely
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not
Accurate and timely information? From this provosts office? Thats funny!
Anxiety and Stress have filled UND campus as far as faculty are concerned.
Appearing candid, he is completely duplicitous.
Definitely not accurate, like his first explanation of how seed money grants would be awarded to
science vs arts and humanities.
Even if I get information, I do not know if I can believe it.
Even simple things have become incredibly delayed. The idea that every decision has to go
trough John Miller is insulting to the chairs and deans who actually know something about higher
education
Failure to respond to phone calls or emails, or long delays are the norm. John Miller is the worst
-- to the point of callous disregard for any standard of professional standards or courtesy. When
the provost does reply -- usually after a lengthy delay, he usually evades the key points of the
inquiry.
From the time he took this position, his actions have been concerning and not directed to faculty
concerns
Given that faculty aren't allowed to communicate directly with the Provost, I'm not sure how
anyone could say that the Provost is "open" about information or his decisions.
Ha! Not open at all. You can't trust a thing he says.
He does provide information to the faculty. What he does not do is listen to faculty or involve us
in making decisions. SOAR, for example. Did we decide to do this? I just completed 18 hours
of work on the SOAR report. Faculty who are completing these feel that decisions about
programs have already been made, and that the SOAR experience is just one example of a
"patina" of share governance and transparency. It's not. The information sought in the SOAR
report was always available through Insitutional Research, Finances, etc. Two decisions made by
22 | P a g e
diLorenzo involving removing Dean Swisher and the director of the library. No transparency
there.
He says one thing, that the specific audience wants to hear, but does whatever he wants to do in
the end. Absolutely no integrity...this does not fair well in north dakota
He's "open" with responses and general positions, but generalized public positions do not seem to
be reflected in implementation.
I find him to be quite secretive about all issues.
I find the Provost is very good at customizing a message for those in front of him. But if you are
in front of him with different groups, you may hear a very different message. I find him
duplicitous.
I have no confidence in the Provost. I do not trust anything the he says or does. The interactions
I have had with him lead me to feel that he speaks only in half-truths at best. I cannot think of a
single interaction I have had with him where I didnt end up feeling played. He may have a
vision for UND, but I have no idea what it is because he has been consistently terrible at
communication. I think this is evidenced by the lack of transparency with strategic
reprioritization (I still have no idea what this is, or what it means for me, my department, or
college). I think this is further evidenced by the recent uproar from students about tuition.
Furthermore, his pitch to departments to do more research, bring in more money, publish more, is
not supported by the increased teaching loads that UND has experienced. He seems to have hired
several administrators without making me understand why resources were allocated that way
instead of freeing up faculty to do the research and publishing he wants. In the dealings I have
had with him it was made clear that he was not interested in my thoughts. He wanted me to
simply follow his orders unquestioningly.
I think he only says the bare minimum and only says that if it is to try to get himself out of
"trouble or a bad spot"
I'd like to give this a rating worse than "not at all" because that rating doesn't convey the full
destructive effect that the Provost has had on UND and its faculty, students & staff.
If he was open, major decisions on matters of concern to the faculty wouldn't be conducted
quickly at the very end of the semester or during the summer, when faculty are unavailable.
I'm not sure where the problem lies in the college or the provosts office, however, the late notice
of a faculty search put us at a real disadvantage.
Inadequate communication has been a significant hindrance from making progress on this
campus.
Knows what to say, but actions speak louder
Not at all. Re timeliness and capability. How many requested reports and sets of information had
to be provided ASAP, only to sit on his desk unattended to?
Not sure. Let me hire a consultant to study that issue.
Superificial gestures towards openness have been made; however, I feel that I cannot trust the
Provost nor information that comes from his office. The faculty are often given very vague
communiques and directed to a centralized website that is supposed to answer our questions. This
is neither timely nor efficient as a way to provide accurate information in a transparent manner.
The Office of the Provost knowingly uses weasel words when explaining anything. In effect,
nothing that is said is accurate in any intellectually responsible manner. That is the intent: to
avoid any and all accountability. When direct questions are asked, the answer is almost always a
23 | P a g e
deferral to unspecified forthcoming disbursment of the requested information (e.g., how much
was spent on outside consultants). Like Godot, this information will never arrive.
The Provost actively participates in deception and manipulation
The Provost does not respond to inquiries and concerns. He does not listen when you meet with
him .
The Provost guards information, only releasing carefully scripted information that benefits him.
The Provost has pledged more openness and, at the recent University Senate meeting, publicly
cited his zeal to get things done as a possible barrier to not being more consultative and
communicative. This is inexcusable. The Provost is being paid to be a leader, not a manager. We
are bereft of leadership and the Provost seems to have his thumbs in too many pies at the
University without anyone knowing what's changing or why.
The Provost's answers to questions change depending on whom he is talking to.
The Provost's office does not provide accurate assessments of many issues, including SOAR or
the budget model. Faculty are portrayed as excited about these processes, when in fact there is so
much depression and resentment.
The weak link with the president's staff.
There are blogs, but are they accurate and useful? No!
This Provost operates so fast at times, the decisions are over by the time faculty can contribute to
the thinking.
Timeliness is terrible. Scheduling times to hear from faculty on important issues at the end of the
academic year and over the summer feels like a strategy to cut faculty out of the process while
appearing to seek input. Also there is sometimes fewer than 24 hours notice for such events.
We have to read about changes in the newspaper. How's that for opennes and transparency?
"Timely" is the key part of this question for me. Because the Provost's Office has taken on so
many functions that it never had before and has dramatically increased accounting and oversight
measures, they are always backed up and doing things a the last minute. Things that used to take
a few days or weeks now take months.
Again, I work at a different level and note that a lot materials leaving that office are highly
inaccurate. Hence, that simple fact makes it hard to believe that difficult issues are being
discussed openly, accurately, and in a timely manner. The students actions I think have shaken
up the upper administration and this could ultimately cause a paradigm shift.up the
Again, there is openness about some issues, but others feel micro-managed, and there is no
explanation for the micro-management. There is insufficient structure to support all of the change
management currently underway at the university. There is poor communication within the Office
of the Provost itself.
Although some members of the Student Senate were criticized for suggesting a vote of no
confidence in the president and provost, I commend them for having the guts to do what faculty
members are too timid to do
Broadly speaking (i.e., when the decision comes from an associate provost) things move too
slowly. Matters of urgency are occassionally handled quickly if the Provost himself is consulted.
Decisions often seem to take a very long time, such as requests for new tenure lines.
Ditto.
I believe that in regard to administration's relationship to the faculty, the provost's office (vs.
president) is critical and most important. The faculty must perceive that the provost's office has,
24 | P a g e
at least, the intentions of being transparent & open. At this time there is a feeling of suspicion by
many faculty.
Read the comments about the president.
See prior remarks - - - in large measure only because he has to be a bit more open than the
President because his decisions are more focused on faculty issues, etc.
Seems like he is, but I have concerns about implementation and ultimate decision making.
The provost had a reputation at his old school that he started many projects and never finished
them. It appears the same way here at UND.
The Provost rarely talks candidly to faculty. And almost always it is after the fact when he does.
The Provost schedules meetings and gathering with faculty and students and then fails to show up
or cancels the meeting. This happens time and again. He does not respond to requests or emails,
even when he requests the email to begin with. When one finally does get 10 minutes of his time,
he is charmingly agreeable and then does nothing to follow up on the action items discussed at
the meeting. He gives the appearance of being open and friendly but he remains illusive and nonresponsive on many issues. And he uses "faculty governance" as a shield to keep people from
questioning his actions and motives.
What ever his audience, he says they are important, and he is working for them.
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the
comments below:
[There were no comments here]
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very
It depends. Typically hear about things but not in consistent time and means.
I feel like surveys like this and the environment that is then created doesn't allow for an
information-gathering time period. Stop it.
The Provost is very responsive and provides excellent and accurate information. Unfortunately,
many members of the faculty misquote him and don't actually listen to the information provided
by the Provost.
information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the
comments below:
Butterflies...
Don't hear much from him.
25 | P a g e
Confidence in the Office of the Provost
7%
6% 3%
43%
14%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
28%
Question: Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the Office of the Provost: Those whose
Communication from the Provosts office is not timely, the information being supplied is not
always accurate, the Provost doesn't provide expectations that are reasonable and sometimes
those expectations aren't articulated but then you're told you're not meeting something you didn't
know you were supposed to meet.
Complete lack of confidence and trust in the Provost.
Fucking douche. How did we hire this guy, knowing that this callous disdain for faculty input
was his M.O. at all his previous institutions?
He delegates all decisions to expensive consultants, communicates poorly if at all, and does not
promote the faculty. University morale is in the toilet because of him.
He has said that he doesn't care about teaching quality
He is overly confident and arrogant. As I said, I don't trust him. Lacks moral conviction.
Doesn't care who he has to take down. He thinks he is better than most leaders and actually is the
worst kind of leader, who doesn't have the respect or the "backs" of the people working for him.
He makes ineffective, punitive decisions which impact faculty, staff and students
He uses a top down approach and I see very little collaboration with faculty or the community.
How much longer til he ruins UND? Should we hire a new vp to find out?
I am not confident that the Office of the Provost shares my concern for valuing faculty research
and excellent teaching.
I believe that DiLorenzo lacks the skill set to be an effective provost
I can't think of one good thing that has come from this office.
I don't think this provost has an understanding of higher education or UND. He's interested in the
school as a business. Very depressing.
I feel he is single handedly ruining this university that many of us take great pride in.
26 | P a g e
I have absolutely no Confidence in this Provst

I have great confidence that the provost is out to build his resume at the expense of faculty effort
and student learning.
I have no confidence in the Office of the Provost.
I have no idea what the Provost's motivations are for his actions but perhaps he is using UND to
get a better job elsewhere no matter what the cost the this university in the short and long term.
I have none. I cringe whenever I have to deal with him.
I have none. If possible, less than none. I want a vote of no confidence--just in him, though, not in
Kelley. Please!
I have noted too many instances of his having said one thing-then done another. I believe he took
the position only to cause major shake-ups on camous-and then move on, forcing faculty to clean
up the mess he's made
I think that the changes that have been implemented by the Provost's office are incredibly
detrimental to UND and are destroying campus morale.
If he said there was a blizzard, I'd break out my shorts.
I'm confident that the Provost will make a lot of decisions, just not the right ones.
I'm confident that the real agenda of SOAR is to add enough to the provost's resume to
camouflage the fiasco that occurred in his last job (UAB). The sequestering of positions, failures
to communicate, and the general move to consolidate power in his office, are exactly what led to
the vote of no confidence in Alabama.
It feels as though the provost's need to fill his resume with all kinds of "accomplishments" at
UND is driving the 1,001 initiatives currently taking place on campus. The template for these
activities seems to be "what has been done at other campus" put onto UND as a cookie-cutter
template with no concern for the local specifics of UND's context and history.
It is obvious from the recent events that faculty ahve lost faith in him. His bluffs are being called.
We have no confidence that he is acting in the best interest of the organization.
Little leadership exhibited - - much more management rather than leadership - - - quite
concerned with many comments he has made - - - worst of the worst, "if it ain't broke - - - break
it" - - - appears to have little appreciation for the many decisions over the years that made UND
special.
Make him go, please!
My vote would be one of no confidence in di Lorenzo
no confidence at all. have sat on committees only to turn around and hear him say something
totally untrue as if it came from the committee. He says things are in the hands of faculty and
departments after making a decision.
No confidence, please remove
No confidence, whatsoever.
No trust in the current system.
None, none, none. The Provost has broken everything he can get his hands on. I don't trust
anything he says.
Provost demand changes and implements these changes when things are already in process
Quite simply, there has been no advancements of the university, my college, department, or
individual work as result of the Office of the Provost (or any other relevant adminstrative office
for that matter). That is, nothing substantive has changed, but we have had to work in an
27 | P a g e
enviroment constantly under threat of some pending decisions that may or may not have be
detrimental to our careers and workplace. The SOAR process has been a complee sham; it was
thrust upon the faculty from this office, and then the false story has been repeated that it emerged
from our own efforts. The latter is a blatant lie. The morale on campus couldn't be any worse, not
just among faculty but from our very best students who are very much aware of administrative
malfeasance. There should be a vote of no confidence.
SOAR is absolutely ridiculous. It is not a faculty-driven initiative and it seems unbelievable the
Provost's Office would ask so many to waste so much time on something that is so meaningless.
The Provost (as he likes to be called) should primarily be the Vice President of Academic Affairs.
It appears that he has a quest for power over service to the University. He seems to disenfranchise
much of the Universtiy, including Deans, in order to create a University that meets his image of
what the University should be. The question is whether he is doing this on his own accord or
whether he is doing it under the direction and approval of the President.
The Provost doesn't care about UND. He is only using us as a stepping stone for a college
presidency somewhere else. He doesn't even live here, he lives in faculty housing. His family
lives in Alabama. He is trying to "shake things up" in order to build his resume. It is quite sad
what he has done to the university in his few years here.
The Provost has given me no reason to have confidence in him. Just the opposite. He has made
sweeping changes with little or no input from faculty and students. He has a top down approach
and appears to like the control he wields...always a bad sign!
The provost has surrounded himself with those who support his agenda; this is extremely
disturbing
The SOAR process is the worst thing to ever happen to our campus. It's a disaster. It has
accomplished absolutely nothing positive. All it has done is cause fear and suspicion among the
faculty and staff. Students sense the climate of fear and uncertainty across campus and they are
responding in their own way(s) to this shift in climate. In addition to causing panic, fear, and
stress among faculty and staff, the SOAR process has taken faculty away from our primary
duties--research and teaching. This is why we are here! I've been so busy this year with SOAR
that I've devoted less time to research and teaching. This is the case for the majority of faculty.
We are running in circles chasing paperwork to prove that we deserve to have a job at this
university. At the same time, our primary duties--research and teaching have been neglected. This
is absolutely ridiculous.
The SOAR project is presented as a faculty led initative. Who started the process and hired the
consultant? Who chose the members for the committees? Why is the process taking place at one
of the busiest times of the year? I do not need to write a book response to questions, to start a
conversation.
This man has a bad track record in his previous employment and it's no surprise that it continues
here. I have not met a single faculty member (in any department) that has expressed confidence in
the Provost's leadership or in his ability to consider the interests of stakeholders before making
decisions.
This Provost seems to think he can import some canned ideas into the university and put them
into action instead of really trying to understand the institution and work with people here to
move it forward. He came in with a great deal of faculty support and he has lost almost every bit
of it by being unreliable. He has no sense of what is of value at UND and is only interested in
28 | P a g e
carrying out a couple of highly visible initiatives so he can look good on paper and move on to a
Presidency somewhere else. I've served under 5 Provosts at UND, and this one is by far the worst
and most dangerous. On a daily basis, almost every faculty member, chair, and college-level
administrator I talk with finds the Provost impossible to deal with and a barrier to progress. I
have never seen an administrator so widely disliked and distrusted. He will, and has perhaps
already, caused lasting harm to the institution.
This provost, his vice provost and assorted vice presidents, have done more damage to UND than
imaginable. They have tried to consolidate power and money into his office since he arrived. An
example, the Student Tech Fee. Originally, these funds were distributed democratically with
great input from students. The provosts office has taken control of most of these funds, breaking
a promise made to students when STF was created. Other examples of folly from his office:
SOAR a colossal waste of everyones time, the budget redesign another attempt to seize
money (hence power). The benefit of the student is no longer a concern of the provosts office.
Faculty positions go unfilled while he adds vice presidents and other make-work administrator
positions (Chief Strategy Officer? Director of Strategy?) The library goes underfunded but he is
able to find money for a new UAS Director (reporting to him, of course). I have no confidence in
this provost or the sycophants he surrounds himself with.
Very poor job. A very unliked person. His actions have caused a huge drop in campus morale.
Weak link in the president's staff.
While the Office of the Provost gives lip service to caring about the arts and humanities, the
rhetoric is not backed up by practice. Most alarming is the lack of new hires in Arts and Sciences
as it pertains to humanities and the arts. Second, the cuts to the library are going to make it
impossible for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students to conduct research. The
Chester Fritz needs to have the top subscriptions to Jstor, Ebsco, Project Muse, and maintain a
commitment to book (it would be nice is if the library could by books published by the faculty).
Building maintenance is another huge problem. Heating, cooling, and basic technology (that I use
to teach with) is not at all adequate in O'Kelly Hall.
While the president and provost have stated they understand and have heard concerns of faculty, I
have not yet seen any concrete or pragmatic process proposed for immediate (beginning now)
rectification of non-transparency. Administration seems to be defensive rather than open and
willing to learn.
With the Provost's top down model, he seems to not want to interact with faculty. Seems to only
want contact with other administrators. With this approach, he has completely eliminated the
faculty voice.
I think the Provost has had some good ideas and made some needed changes. There have,
however, been dramatic changes that seem more oriented to keeping up with others rather than
making a concerted effort to understand our context. The problem is not that we aren't being
informed--something that could be fixed with a blog and better emails. The problem is that we
aren't involved. Whether administration likes to hear this or not, faculty know this campus and its
operations better than any other constituency, and we have great ideas. To shut us out only leads
to dramatic missteps and ill-informed policies.
Many promises, however, few results
Read the comments about the president. The president and the provost are birds of the asame
feather.
29 | P a g e
The problem is the top-down approach.

The SOAR initiative has been horrible. I fail to see how using a model designed for financially
troubled institutions should have been selected for UND, and furthermore it is now uncertain
how, if at all, the data will be used. Seems like a complete waste of time and resources.
This is recent. I supported the Provost for some time taking on faith that his decisions were all
leading to a logical (better) outcome for UND. Instead, I become more perplexed as to what is
going on. The SOAR process, for example, is absolutely besides the point anymore. We have a
mountain of work thrust upon us and all I see are decisions taken, without consultation, about
program changes. That would be fine but then what are we doing SOAR for?
Too many large unknowns (SOAR, MIRA, etc.) for too long while simultaneously holding up
"soft" funding for previously ongoing projects and processes.
While I understand and appreciate the need for visionary leaders, my confidence that the Provost
can support an effective management team to carry out that vision continues to wane.
Again, I deal with him on several different levels, so a moderate level if that
I agree with much of what the Provost is trying to do, but worry about some aspect of it and the
impact. Is there really a plan?
I expected a question on communication, but there wasn't one, so I'm providing some comments
here. I believe that much of the unhappiness with the provost's office has to do with a lack of
communication and answering questions after the fact. For the most part, I personally don't have
significant issues with many of the decisions that have been made as I see them as being
consistent with trends in HE and a way to bring UND up to date, but in a context where there are
a lot of changes all at once, little communication or consultation with faculty beforehand, and a
faculty that has been very insulated (at UND and in regard to major shifts in HE over the years)
communication is critical.
I still think there are good ideas but there is inappropriate or insufficient staff to carry them out.
John miller as Steve light are simply not adequately informed or trained to have the power they
have when it comes to implementation. The provost needs to listen to a wider range of voices to
I'm torn on this one. I think he has the potential to be a much better leader if he would consult a
broad range of faculty more often than he does.
He is doing things that need to be done. Wish he would have better communication support.
I am very confident that the Provost's office has a vision for UND's future, but it may involve
changes that some faculty may not like.
The current Provost is doing an excellent job, is significant asset to the University and is actually
fixing problems that have been occuring for decades.
ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
30 | P a g e
[There were no comments here]
31 | P a g e
Office/Graduate DeanTransparency
4% 5%
30%
25%
25%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
12%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies is
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or
Not Very added the comments below:
Faculty need to be involved in the decisions for searches, in the direction and models proposed
for this important position, and informed prior to letting go of a very effective and respected
colleague whose work as director of the graduate school has been appreciated.
No news, no updates, no stewardship of my experience.
Very little power is in this Dean's office.
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added
the comments below:
Sadly, I do not believe the Grad Dean knows much about the vision for Graduate Studies at UND.
The Dean of Graduate Studies has been undermined to the point where that office sits in a pit
mine.
This is hard to answer. Before the Provost stepped in, I felt this office was doing much better.
However, since the Provost let the acting Dean go, there has been a great deal of confusion and a
lack of transparency surrounding the issue of Graduate Studies. Something that was starting to
work better (as a result of the placement of the interim Dean) suddenly was completely broken.
Unsure of transparency regarding the stage at which deciding whether a large-scale thing should
be attempted or not.
Wasn't the Dean asked to resign by the higher adminstration. There has been little communication
about this, and I wonder why the search for a replacement is internal and not requiring an outside
resarch firm, when other recent searches have been external and required outside research firms.
Are we to interpret that as the higher administration de-valuing graduate study at UND?
32 | P a g e
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or
Dean Swisher has always been open and available.

From my experience Dean Swisher has been good at sharing information with faculty.
The mission of the Graduate School has been self-evident, but seems hampered by integration
with more modern technology.
The office communicates clearly and regularly with faculty by email.
There appear to be issues within the School of Graduate Studies that need attention. However,
there does not seem to be the same disregard for those he leads.
As soon as he took on the role, he met with faculty in their departments across campus and really
listened to ideas.
Dean Swisher has been an outstanding communicator.
Dean Swisher is readily available to meet with faculty and students -- he is a strong student
advocate!
Dean Swisher is the best Dean of the School of Graduate Studies experienced in my lengthy
career. Unfortunately, the new provost has decided to do another "internal search" to replace
him--inviting unqualified internal candidates to apply for his decision--this has upset most of the
campus!
Dean swisher regularly responds to requests for information
Dean Swisher...never had a better dean of the GS.
Dean Swisher's strong point is that he remembers what it is like to be a member of the faculty and
he conducts the office with that in mind. Thankfully, he has refrained from acquiring the mind
and demeanor of an administrator. He will be missed, but it is understandable that he wants to
return to teaching.
Dr. Swisher was excellent at his job. He did what he needed to do and as far as I know everyone
had confidence in him.
Dr. Swisher was excellent in every regard.
Even if I dont agree, I know where I stand and why. I respect that.
I've found Wayne to be a very effective graduate coordinator with good inter-personal skills
Since Wayne Swisher has been dean, I have only good things to say about this office.
Swisher is the best.
The current Dean of the School of graduate studies has been fair and reasonable in all my
dealings with him. The office is only as good as the integrity and capability of the person who
holds it. This is good news for the School of Graduate Studies.
The Dean of the Graduate School works extremely well with the departments. He always consults
on important issues. He is a good human being and well respected. It is very unfortunate taht his
contract is not being renewed based on age - which is a serious discrimination. It is even more
puzzling that the President and provost went for an internal search! Looks like teh VP Student
Affairs has a hand in some of these as there are rumors that graduate admissions are being moved
to her area.
The Grad Dean is always attentive and prompt. We have very few issues that seem obscure of
confusing. That office works better than any on campus.
33 | P a g e
The Graduate Dean and his office team have had some challenges, but do a good job in
supporting the graduate program on campus to the best of their limited resource abilities.
This has been true in the past; under a new Dean, who knows?
This is how an administrative unit should be run.
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Dont Know
Consensual cannibalism should be legal in all 50 states.

Dean Swisher has been put in an impossible position. The entire grad school was shuttled out of
Twamley in favor of Susan Walton and Lori Reesor's marketing and packaging dog and pony
show and it's a disgrace. All I have seen Mrs. Walton accomplish during her tenure is removing
"The" from our University of North Dakota logo. Was that worth disgracing the grad school by
evicting them to a hole in the wall on the top floor of a difficult to find, unbecoming mess?
Don't care doesn't affect me
Don't have any contact with him.
Don't know him.
I am not sure about the purpose of this question. What decisions would faculty need to know
about other than about admissions, which is pretty much this Dean covers?
I don't deal with the Graduate School
I have not interacted with the Grad School dean
I'm not involved in this area, so I don't have an opinion.
There has not been a major change in the policy regarding graduate studies since I came to UND.
We don't have a dean of graduate studies. This is silly.
What Dean?
34 | P a g e
Office/Graduate Dean Openness
3% 5%
27%
22%
27%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
17%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies is in
providing accurate and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings
were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
The Dean of Graduate Studies has no decisions to make anymore, so I do not expect any
information, either.
They do what they can to cause difficulties, especially for fireign students.
were Neutral added the comments below:
Current Dean of Grad. Studies is in flux.

Very open regarding accurate answers. Answers are often not timely.
were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
Again, this answer would have been different before the sudden change in leadership.
He replies as quickly as he can - it seems like information is sometimes withheld from him as
well
I've never had a problem with the grad office.
Not much has changed so not as much an issue.
Although, given the current climate, I think it has been difficult for the SGS Dean to be open
about sharing why there have been cuts to his staff.
Dean Swisher has always been very open regarding decisions that come from his office.
However, given circumstances of late, I believe that some of the decision making authority has
been taken away from him, leaving him in a position of NOT being able to communicate openly
35 | P a g e
with faculty. However, he has always been supporive of my graduate programs and has always
been open to hearing feedback.
Dean Swisher has vastly improved the climate of Graduate Studies for students and faculty.
Dean Swisher provides ongoing information to the faculty and asks for input on a regular basis!
Despite the fact that there have been a reduction in the staff at the graduate school, they have
managed to provide accurate and timely information. It is only because the staff there have a
tremendous respect for the Dean and are willing go above and beyond.
I believe that Dean Swisher is the most effective Dean of Graduate Studies ever--yet the new
provost has started an INTERNAL search to replace him. This is an incredibly stupid move that
may not be stopped, until it is too late
If he is in-his door is open and he is willing to discuss issues and share information
If only this openness was the norm in UND's administration.
One phone call and you knew where you were at regarding a situation
The current Dean of Graduate Studies supports students and graduate faculty across areas. He is
reasonable and listens to our concerns with respect.
The Dean is constrained by the lack of information from the Provost/President
The Dean of Graduate Studies is as respected an individual is there is on campus.
There appears to be a free exchange of ideas with a fair hearing of those who have concerns.
There could be an increase in communication, but the intent of the Dean does not appear to be in
question.
We feel supported and heard by the grad dean. I believe part of this is because he meets once a
week all year, with reps from every college, insuring healthy commmunication. Other campus
entities shouldl try that.
were Dont Know added the comments below:
Don't have contact with him.

I did not know about this position.
I'm not sure why this office is even needed. The colleges can handle things themselves.
36 | P a g e
Confidence/Office of the Graduate Dean
25%
3% 6%
24%
27%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don't Know
15%
Question: Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the Office of the Dean of the School of
Graduate Studies: Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Dr. Swisher has done a good job as interm, but the interm label has limited any impact he would
have been able to make. Many decisions that required tough calls seemed to just go the way of
least resistance. For instance, allowing family members and former business partners to serve as
doctoral committee members.
I have confidecen in the current Dean of Graduate Studies, but no confidence in the Office, as it
seems to be a simple puppet.
In it's current form, it has no direction, no vision. It's just a paperwork processing unit.
The Grad School has had an Acting Dean for too long and I think this has harmed the Grad
School overall. I am concerned that seeking a new Dean internally will further diminish the Grad
School's relationship with the rest of UND administration.
Graduate Studies: Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Confident in the personnel, not confident that they have enough personnel or resources.
I have no dealings with the graduate school or the Dean.
I think it needs stronger leadership.
Since we don't know who the new dean is going to be, it's hard to respond to this question
The Dean is competent, but could be more forceful with the administration on issues that impact
the SGS.
This unit is valuable and in need of support by the higher administration.
Graduate Studies: Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
37 | P a g e
This is a moving target and frankly don't see how this is pertinent given we are in the process of
selecting a new Dean.
With Dean Swisher at the helm, there haven't been many changes (given his interim status) , so it
has been relatively stable. I also think Swisher has done a good job. But with the impending
change in dean and rumored changes to status of the grad school, that stability is up in the air.
That said, I think that the instability and lack of info about intensions for the grad school comes
from the provost's office.
Dr. Swisher and his staff has been a great to work with
Dr. Swisher has done a better job than the previous dean of graduate studies.
Dr. Swisher is the best Dean of Graduate Studies I have worked under in four decades at UND
Dr. Swisher was a welcome relief after Joey!!
He is honest. Can't say that about his bosses.
He's one of my favorite individuals on campus. He listens very well and is quite humble. It takes
a lot of strength to be humble. And he also leads with strength in making decisions but is not
overly controlling.
High confidence in Dean Swisher.
I have always had tremendous confdence in our grad dean.
I have found Dean Swisher to be very open to collaboration and build consensus with others. He
is a strong advocate of serving students!
I have had no issues negatively with the graduate school
I have the highest confidence in his abilities.
I think Wayne has done an excellent job and has undone all of the harm Joey did previously. I
think it is unfortunate that the Provost has "no further use" for Wayne.
The Dean of Graduate Studies has done well by our College.
Wayne has been an outstanding graduate dean. He sees students and faculty as people -- not
bureaucratic problems. He has been treated shamefully by the provost.
Wayne has done a good job. I appreciate his service.
without reservation
Graduate Studies: Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
Don't *really* know if the office will continue to exist in any meaningful way. Wayne has been
fine; I'm just not sure how meaningful the provost is allowing him to be.
Don't know him/her?
I am concerned about what will happen without Wayne Swisher. It seems a case of ageism to
force him out.
I can't say, because the candidates were so terrible. I hope Nelson is never chosen. Mihelich is
also untenable--nepotism. The others are acceptable.
Since we don't have a Dean at the moment, I think this is a misguided question.
Since we don't know who that will be, I cannot answer. However, I have very little confidence in
the process of selecting the new dean. I cannot believe that a research I institution would not do a
national search for a graduate dean.
38 | P a g e
Wayne Swisher is one of the best administrators on this campus and it is an absolute shame we
are loosing him.
39 | P a g e
Dean - JDOSAS
Number of college respondents: 42
Number of college Faculty: 86 (Fall 2014)
Dean - JDOSAS - Transparency
2% 7%
2%
17%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
71%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Aerospace Studies
and Sciences is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were
Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
My contract is rarely paid out correctly from the correct money pool. Monies which are
earmarked to my department frequently go missing or are flatout removed from our budget by the
Dean. There is never any explanation for these inconsistencies.
Neutral added the comments below:
[No ratings made here]
Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
40 | P a g e
Some people in Aerospace do not see all the college's departments as equal partners and the
Dean's office has been complicit in ignoring how this can have negative repercussions for some
department compared to others.
I have always considered our Dean to be transparent and feel he has communicated issues of
concern promptly
In full support of the Dean of the JDOSAS.
He is very open and easy to work with. He genuinely cares for the college and the well being of
faculty and staff. It is an exceptionally well run college
We have a very strong Dean.
Very inclusive
Bruce Smith is open and honest. A refreshing change from most administrators.
The office door is always open.
Dean - JDOSAS - Openness
2% 7%
2%
7%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
81%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Aerospace Studies and
Sciences is in providing accurate and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those
whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Information provided is almost always incomplete and rarely (if ever) timely.
whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
41 | P a g e
Completely transparent and open to ideas and feedback, but also able to make tough decisions
when needed.
Good commutation
Dean Smith keeps everyone in the college up to date on all concerns.
Dean - JDOSAS - Confidence
2% 2% 5%
5%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
85%
Question: Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the Office of the Dean of the College of
Aerospace Studies and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the
comments below:
The office of the Dean is only concerned about one department and has no regard toward the
operation and success of the rest of the college.
Aerospace Studies and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Aerospace Studies and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the
comments below:
There is heartfelt confidence around Aerospace for the current Dean Smith, but there is a lot of
uncertainty and apprehension about who will be hired next year when he retires; so, I have had
some confidence in the current leadership, but I am concerned about possible implications from
paranoia and in-fighting in the near future.
It is too bad that the Provost plays up with him too.
I love working for my college
42 | P a g e
Bruce Smith is outstanding. He surrounds himself with smart people and gets out of their way.
He doesnt micro manage. He is not so insecure as to need total control of everything (like upper
UND administrators). If anything, he works hard to allow his people to do their jobs better and
easier. Bruce runs interference for the rest of us, and lets us do our jobs. That has enabled
Aerospace to thrive. I will really miss Bruce Smith when he retires.
43 | P a g e
Dean - Arts & Sciences

Dean - A&S - Transparency
3% 8%
17%
38%
10%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
24%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences is
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or
Decisions are made after input has been colected, but then decisions do not follow that input (see
Strategic Plan) according to pre-existing design by the dean. Discussions are usually ended after
half an hour, thanking us for our valuable input, which is promptly ignored.
Our dean has not been straightforward with her intentions and vision for the College. She does
not fight for her faculties' perspectives with respect to the neoliberal interests of the higher
administration..
Top down approach and really has no idea how the research activity in a department such as ours
would interact with the other functions of the university. She isn't every truthful and is offensive
to the faculty.
The dean seems to think information will trickle down to the faculty. It doesn't.
Communication is sparse.
I see her trying to "play the Big Boy's game". Her convictions change. She also doesn't fight for
her faculty, rather self-serving and wanting to move ahead and succeed. That seems to be her
agenda.
My dean makes some decisions transparent but many are not. She has also lied to me twice,
which has undermined my view of her.
44 | P a g e
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added
the comments below:
Since the dean is at the whim of the Provost, I don't always fault her for not being as transparent
or open as I might like since she can't be either because she doesn't have the information (Provost
hasn't shared) or she's afraid for her own job.
not as strait forward as the previous 2 if you count the interim.
about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or
We have all been running so fast to keep up with the provost's initiatives, I feel our dean has been
in the same boat as us trying to keep pace with that. I also think she pays more attention to local
context, and plans initiatives and changes more slowly and thoughtfully. I have felt pretty much
in the loop on these kinds of activities.
I think our Dean is afraid to be completely transparent because of the climate the Provost's office
has created.
I think she is making a sincere effort, which I would not say about the Provost.
She has not been here long enough for me to form a solid opinion.
I think she does a fantastic job
The Dean, of course, is largely dependent on the Office of the Provost. That being said, the Dean
is equally, if not more so dependent on the faculty of the college--at least in a properly facultygoverned university. That is, the Dean should be OUR (not hers and certainly not the higher
adminstration's) representative. We depend on her to advocate for our needs. But what has
frequenlty happened is that we are asked by the Dean to bend our needs to what the Provost's
Office declares. I would be more encouraged by the Dean if she took the kind of leadership such
that when the Office of the Provost is unresponsive or even outright antagonistic to her
representation of our needs, she returned to the college and organized collective action. The
college will continue to be underfunded until we resist the disproportionate power in the hands of
upper administration and state governance at this university.
She lets us know what is going on and is doing a pretty good job of being responsive to her
faculty.
Our Dean is amazing and we are extremely lucky to have such an effective, clear-thinking leader
in our college!
45 | P a g e
Dean - A&S - Openness
3% 6%
16%
41%
14%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
20%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences is in
I have no clue what is going on in the College, and neither, do I suspect, does the Dean - the Dean
does not know, for example, who faculty are, what they do, why that would be important.
The dean has put chairs between herself and the faculty.
Have no evidence of this, but feel SHE is fearful of the administration. She reacts and I think
tries to be compliant, without understanding the situation, which has not been explained, but
dictated to her.
Many times we are not informed of decisions impacting us until after decisions have been made.
Also, there is misinformation & lies.
not as available as previous deans
I think she tries, but is prohibited in being completely accurate because she receives partial
information herself.
I think the Dean is open and responds if asked.
Our Dean and her staff are accessible, clear, and helpful. The College of A&S is well on its way
to being the powerhouse it can be. At a time when much of the rest of the university seems
"broken," it's great to have such a highly functioning Dean and administrative staff.
46 | P a g e
She has good use of emails to clarify issues, better than the Provost's efforts. Well, actually the
Provost has sent such emails, but his manner generates enough confusion to offset any benefits
from follow-up emails.
Question: Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts
and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
There has been very little communcation about any official policy from the Office of the Dean.
Dean - A&S - Confidence
3% 8%
15%
42%
17%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
14%
and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Does not provide support to faculty; only works in the interest of the school.
I think the dean needs to try to work with the Provost, which is a lost cause and detrimental to
faculty and the college.
They seem to be good at fund raising, but cannot take decisions, or allign with the higher
administration in dismantling what UND used to be and what would make us stand out.
Not experienced enough for this job, or to stand up to the provost when need arises.
I do not feel that she cares about the wellfare of faculty who work tirelessly in research, teaching,
and service. She also seems to be a micro-manager who spends time on the wrong things.
She needs to be more up-front with everyone, avoid lying, and somehow get the provost and
president to support the college.
seems to get pushed around by the provost. there has been a decline in the quality of life in terms
of working here in the last couple years. I accredit this to the provost more than the dean.
The Dean's decision to base SOAR decisions upon data from only one year (2013) is highly
problematic. The metrics that the Dean is using to measure the effectiveness of each department
("effeciency", which only takes into consideration costs of instruction and not quality of
instruction) is very worrisome.
47 | P a g e
and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Confidence in the Dean's office, but a lack of confidence in the college's structure and makeup to
allow for progress
I think she's in a tough spot, but could do a better job of supporting the Humanities and Arts.
Again, because she has to be so very careful about what she says/does because she answers to the
Provost (and could lose her job for saying the wrong thing), I can't really say what she might
really be like as a Dean in different circumstances.
Odd plan to increase enrollment in some depts by decreasing in others
and Sciences: Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
Actually, I have confidence in the Dean, but sometimes my lack confidence in my Dean is a result
in my lack of confidence in the Office of the Provost--which I realize is not my Dean's fault.
The OFFICE, has some really well intentioned, honest, upfront staff. I trust them more than I
trust the dean.
I think she's doing a good job, from what I've seen.
Our Dean and her staff are excellent and have already done a great deal to move the college
forward.
48 | P a g e
Dean - Business & Public Administration

Dean - BPA - Transparency
4% 13%
29%
13%
21%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
21%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Business and Public
Administration is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings
Dean Williams has an agenda and regardless of faculty input the decisions are already made
beforehand. A double standard has been set and enforced by her and the rest of the
administration. Only one department is required to complete a national search for a chair of the
department, while all others are based on faculty within their department. There was no input in
this decision, suggesting that she has connections outside of NDUS that she wants to bring to the
position, which is not likely to be for the benefit of the college or program. Interim chairs have
been assigned by her, ignoring faculty input. Significant retirements have taken place within
departments, and only one department is still not able to hire permanent positions. This indicates
a deeper issue.
Has meetings and plays lip service to faculty and then does what she wants.
Says one thing, often does another. Many decisions seem decided before any "feedback" is
gathered.
Seems to be mimicing Pres and Provost lead
49 | P a g e
She's new.
Dean Williams is transparent enough. She need not be more, thus, "very" relative to my
somewhat low expectations.
It is a new dean, things are changing, sometimes there is a bottlenect of decision making in the
dean's office. But, given a new dean in a tough position, I'll give her the benefit of doubt for the
year.
were Dont Know added the comments below:
Too early to tell. I fear she is being used as a puppet of Provost DiLorenzo, so I have no idea what
decisions are truly hers.
Dean - BPA - Openness
4%
17%
30%
13%
13%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
22%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Business and Public
Administration is in providing accurate and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty?
Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
50 | P a g e
3 current AY retirements have been known were coming since the start of the
current AY, no permanent positions were allowed to be hired. A 4th retirment
will happen by December. NDSU has been allowed to immediately advertise
and re-hire for their open positions, but not UND. Seems disjointed. The
result is the hiring of new faculty is unilikely to occur. Other departments are
treated differently in the process. It appears the Dean certainly has an issue
in working with this department.
Faculty recruiting is a BIG issue in this regard.
Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
[No comments made here]
Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
Info is provided quite late. Periodic all school faculty meetings are
good....better than last Dean in that regard.
Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
She has had town hall meetings, and college-wide meetings - first ones in 15
years.
51 | P a g e
Dean - BPA - Confidence
20%
36%
8%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
32%
4%
Business and Public Administration? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the
comments below:
I am confident that she will do her best to damage anyone's career that gets in her way.
The dean came on in support of many things, but since then has largely closed her door to faculty
and students.
She appears to be much more of a manager than a leader - - - could be she is quite concerned
about repercussions from Provost an d President if not perceived as a "team" player. She needs to
be much more a student of our foundations of success. She has much to learn about our political
culture.
It seems decisions are made to please the Provost.
Business and Public Administration? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Business and Public Administration Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the
comments below:
I think she will figure out how to make this place run better, and have the
leadership abilities to make good things happen.
52 | P a g e
Dean - Education & Human Development

Dean - EHD - Transparency
3%
28%
10% 3%
56%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Education and
Human Development is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose
Total lack of transparency and often he is intentionally misleading.

He keeps refering to a plan for the future, but never shares it. By this point it seems like he is just
making this up as he goes along.
Very few people are involved in the decision making process in the College- those that have been
selected by the Dean.
Many ideas and promises, however, there is no follow through!
He is highly secretive and has no communication with faculty.
Information is not shared with faculty ! ... in fact it seems like many things are kept from the
faculty. He does not collaborate with faculty and makes it known that he can do what ever he
wants as the Dean.
Dean Hill is essentially a dictator. He decides what to do, and then imposes his decisions without
regard for any established policies or proceedures.
Transparency is not valued by this dean. He is devious in the extreme.
53 | P a g e
He is a very chair-oriented dean. I like to think our chair is keeping us informed, but I'm not sure
that's the case across the college.
I feel our Dean is mired in things I don't know about and the college is floundering. He may be
having issues trying to be in between faculty and the Provost who I think is toxic.
I believe the dean's office is not very transparent or open at all. The Dean's pattern in being
inconsistent with decision making, saying he will do one thing and then doing another, and not
clearly communicating with the faculty as a whole or individuals has led to a lack of trust. Not
only do I feel that transparency and openness are not in place, but that the Dean is purposefully
keeping his decisions cloaked.
Maybe confounded by communication thru chairs
Main means of sharing information is during once/semester meetings. Some people have his ear;
some don't. If he does have any plans for the college, I am not aware of them.
Given the relative secrecy if the provost and president I believe the dean shares as much as he is
able
Everyone needs to give new Deans time to adjust
I think as much as he knows he shares unless he got a "gag order" from the provost
Dean - EHD - Openness
8%
5%
5%
54%
28%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
54 | P a g e
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Education and Human
Development is in providing accurate and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty?
My experience with the Dean is that he is a man who is in over his head and does not possess the
skillset to be an effective dean. He wonders fromm pillar to post with seeminly little sense of
what he should be doing. Above all, I have found him to be dishonest and would recommend that
he step down from the position. The provost "promised" a review of the dean this year and then
when asked recently said that it wouldn't be until next year.
The level of communication is zero. We hear about changes via the grapevine, the morale of the
College is terribly low, faculty are terminated without due process.
He doesn't understand what timely or accurate means.
Much like the Provost, our Dean subscribes to the top down model. He does not want to meet
with faculty, would rather write letters and policies to communicate his decisions. "Timely" is
not in our Dean's leadership style. Since he took over, there has been limited progress because
everything is on hold for some ridiculous reason. He likes to blame the Provost's office, while
this may have some impact, his ineptitude also plays a major role.
He does not understand the culture and does not value getting to know the faculty. He cancels
appointments many times and then does not reschedule.
Information is provided AFTER the dean has made his decisions. He gives a veneer of ostensible
shared governance by appointing (raather than allowing elections) committees -- which he
genarally chairs himself! He also uses sycophants to tell him what he wants to hear (the associate
dean for research had never done any research!). The concept of "openness" would usually
include honesty, but dean Hill has been demonstrably dishonest on several occasions (duplicity is
habitual).
According to our chair there are many things that cannot be shared
Dean Hill is infamous for shocking faculty with abrupt firings and dismissals, He promises one
thing and changes his mind later without warning. He has lied to faculty about future pay, falsely
promised promotion support, misled us about college plans and is considered by all as completely
inauthentic.
Dean Hill seems to operate relatively quickly, but there have been many decisions that left faculty
members confused.
The administrative officer holds up information. I don't knownifnshe does this intentionally f
There is no follow up, therefore, you can't count on his word.
I think our Dean wants to be a good communicator but he seems to have to backtrack on
decisions due to making poor decisions at first and having to repair them. He has communicated
about finances more than some previsous deans. I do value that he paid off the furniture debt but
how he did that I don't know.
55 | P a g e
If someone approaches him with data, he responds. There are faculty in the college who would
have issues with everyone; I do not support these faculty members.
Some decisions have been made that haven't really been discussed openly enough, which leads to
rumor mills developing.
Those whose ratings were Dont Know added the comments below:
Dean - EHD - Confidence
8%
3%
8%
54%
28%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Education and Human Development? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the
comments below:
He should be fired, immediately

He is a loose cannon. I don't think he understands who the strong and productive members of his
college are, or is doing much to support them.
The Peter Principle at it's best!
Not only do I have no confidence in him, but believe he relishes the control he has as Dean so
much that he has created a hostile and toxic environment. We have completely lost any sense of
community we ever had. He is destroying the College.
56 | P a g e
I give Dean Hill a no confidence vote! He is not a leader; he has limited skills to move our
college forward. There has been more regression than progress. Dean Hill is not interested in
faculty nor is he aware of all the great things happening in his college. He is mostly concerned
with starting projects he can stamp as "his," as his primary focus is finding his claim to fame.
Dean Hill, you say you are here for all of us, but you behavior communicates the exact opposite.
Dean Hill is a bully! Working under this Dean is toxic !
Dean Hill is an obsessive micromanager who is also dishonest and vindictive. Moreover, some of
his actions (e.g., tenure and promotion evaluations) have been frankly bizarre. The provost has
been aware of this for some time, but has ignored it. In short, dean Hill is professionally,
ethically, and temperamentally completely unsuitable to be a college administrator. If UND
wants to avoid a repeat of the Nursing dean embarrassment, it should refuse to renew dean Hill's
contract, and appoint an interim dean for next year.
I am fearful about the future of our college as never before. Dan Hill has done nothing to
engender confidence. His record of keeping is word is abysmal. Faculty avoid him like the
plague. He cannot get people to run for chair and has threatened one department to become their
chair himself if no one steps forward. In fact, his m.o. is to threaten chairs with punitive action if
they do not folow his wishes. Democracy, a guiding principle in our college for decades, is gone.
We feel coerced and misunderstood. His appoinment is the biggest disaster of my years in the
College of Ed..
He can't seem to follow through on things he's promised/promoted, etc.
He has had difficult situations in the college but still I feel his ability to make effective decisions
that support departments is questionable.
I have very little confidence in the EHD Dean's ability to lead the college positively to the future.
Currently, I think he is making unilateral and poor decisions for the college that is causing faculty
and staff to retire or leave in masses. This makes me question our ability to have a healthy, stable
faculty. Finally, I believe that this Dean has very little understanding of diversity and equity,
particularly as it retains to the recruitment & retention of faculty and students.
Education and Human Development? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments
below:
Education and Human Development Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the
comments below:
Please give him time; there area faculty members in such a large college who would "get rid of
anyone who disagree with disagree with their position on issues.
I think he is humble and always trying to improve. He's a bit less coddling than our last dean,
which I think has rubbed some people the wrong way, but I do think he knows where the college
should be going.
57 | P a g e
Dean - Engineering & Mines

Dean - ENGR - Transparency
5%
21%
26%
5%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
42%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Engineering and
Mines is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at
All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Mines is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were
Mines is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were
He tries hard but sometimes suffers from tunnel vision.
58 | P a g e
Dean - ENGR - Openness
11%
21%
26%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
42%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Engineering and Mines is in
59 | P a g e
Dean - ENGR - Confidence
5%
16%
32%
26%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
21%
Engineering and Mines? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments
below:
Engineering and Mines? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Engineering and Mines? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
He could be fantastic but needs to figure out that his way -- his view -- is not always the best. He
just needs to listen better to what others are thinking and not to take offencse when someone does
not embrace his perspective on everything.
60 | P a g e
Dean - Law
Dean - Law - Transparency
40%
60%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Law is about decisionmaking on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very
Important issues, such as the conversion of tenured lines for administrative positions and changes
in programs, are decided without faculty input.
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Law is about decisionmaking on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments
below:
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Law is about decisionmaking on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added
the comments below:
61 | P a g e
Dean - Law - Openness
20%
60%
20%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Law is in providing accurate
and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or
Information is often not distributed until the moment we are about to discuss it. No chance for
faculty to digest or prepare.
and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Neutral
and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Somewhat,
or Very added the comments below:
62 | P a g e
Dean - Law - Confidence
20%
60%
20%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Law? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
It does not feel like the Office of the Dean advocates for the School of Law or its faculty.
Law? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Law? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
63 | P a g e
Dean - School of Medicine and Health

Sciences
Dean - SMHS - Transparency
2%
21%
21%
23%
25%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
9%
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the School of Medicine and Health
Sciences is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were Not
at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
Enough said.
His focus is clearly on the School of Medicine 99% of the time. The two schools could just as
well be split. Total lack of support for faculty that are not directly linked to the education of
medical students.
Sciences is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were
64 | P a g e
He doesn't communicate alot interpersonally but glad he does with legislation and with the Friday
news emails.
Sciences is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose ratings were
Dean - SMHS - Openness
2%
22%
19%
24%
21%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
12%
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the School of Medicine and Health
whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the comments below:
He is great about his openness towards School of Medicine faculty. All other programs take a
distant 2nd.
He thinks he does, but actions speak louder than his words.
there needs to be more leadership in controlling the aggressive behaviors at the SMHS. It's
starting to turn into a hostile environment between 2 departments which drags uninvolved people
into the conflict
whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
65 | P a g e
whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments below:
Dean - SMHS - Confidence
2%
26%
17%
19%
24%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
12%
Medicine and Health Sciences? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the
comments below:
Repeatedly has the inability of admitting to when he has made a pertinent mistake in decision
making, hiring, or leadership. In fact, a complete absolute lack of leadership. We currently have
a chair who is incapable of making decision and running a department, but is still in the positioon
and makes $14,000 less than the incoming chancellor.
Medicine and Health Sciences? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments below:
Medicine and Health Sciences? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the comments
below:
He addresses most of the very important issues like building space and government funding; this
is essential for job security.
66 | P a g e
I have worked for different entities and university administrators. Dean Wynne is an honorable
person in a very political environment. He continues to progress the SMHS for one reason...the
students.
67 | P a g e
Dean - Nursing and Professional Disciplines

Dean - NURS - Transparency
6%
19%
63%
13%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Question: How transparent do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Nursing and
Professional Disciplines is about decision-making on matters of concern to the faculty? Those whose
At times it seems that the Chairs are making the decisions instead of the Dean
The new Dean is very transparent.
68 | P a g e
Dean - NURS - Openness
13%
6%
13%
69%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Question: How open do you feel the Office of the Dean of the College of Nursing and Professional
Disciplines is in providing accurate and timely information about matters of concern to the faculty?
She is trying
Although I think may be difficult for her to obtain the information she needs when she needs it
from the Provost's office.
69 | P a g e
Dean - NURS - Confidence
6%
56%
6%
31%
Not at All
Not Very
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Don'k Know
Nursing and Professional Disciplines? Those whose ratings were Not at All, or Not Very added the
comments below:
Nursing and Professional Disciplines? Those whose ratings were Neutral added the comments
below:
Nursing and Professional Disciplines? Those whose ratings were Somewhat, or Very added the
comments below:
I think she is in a difficult situation as a new dean, and the university seems to be in disarray.
Please note that I have responded to these questions in relation to our CURRENT Dean, who has
only been in place less than a year. My answers would be very different with previous Deans.
It is early in our Dean's tenure at UND
70 | P a g e

Faculty Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on the Survey Results Regarding Faculty Perceptions of

Transparency, Openness and Confidence

Overall Survey Metrics:

Collection Method: Online (email-invite only) via Qualtrics

Office of the President

As much as any university is likely to be.

Office of the President Open

Confidence in the Office of the President

Retired in office several years ago, leaving an incompetent Provost in charge

I really have no idea---- he does not have a presence at the University

Office of the Provost

Office of the Provost Openness

Confidence in the Office of the Provost

I have absolutely no Confidence in this Provst

The problem is the top-down approach.

[There were no comments here]

Dean Swisher has always been open and available.

Consensual cannibalism should be legal in all 50 states.

Office/Graduate Dean Openness

Current Dean of Grad. Studies is in flux.

Don't have contact with him.

Confidence/Office of the Graduate Dean

Dean - JDOSAS - Transparency

Dean - JDOSAS - Openness

Dean - JDOSAS - Confidence

Dean - Arts & Sciences

Dean - A&S - Transparency

Dean - A&S - Openness

not as available as previous deans

Dean - A&S - Confidence

Dean - Business & Public Administration

Dean - BPA - Transparency

Dean - BPA - Openness

Dean - BPA - Confidence

Dean - Education & Human Development

Dean - EHD - Transparency

Total lack of transparency and often he is intentionally misleading.

Dean - EHD - Openness

Dean - EHD - Confidence

He should be fired, immediately

Dean - Engineering & Mines

Dean - ENGR - Transparency

He tries hard but sometimes suffers from tunnel vision.

Dean - ENGR - Openness

Dean - ENGR - Confidence

Dean - Law - Transparency

[No comments made here]

Dean - Law - Openness

Dean - Law - Confidence

Dean - School of Medicine and Health

Dean - SMHS - Transparency

Dean - SMHS - Openness

Dean - SMHS - Confidence

Dean - Nursing and Professional Disciplines

Dean - NURS - Transparency

Dean - NURS - Openness

Dean - NURS - Confidence

You might also like