Faculty Senate Survey Results (Tenure Track Faculty)
	Completely Satisfied	Somewhat Satisified	Neutral	Somewhat Unsatisfied	Very Unsatisfied	Average Grade
President	14%	14%	13%	22%	37%	1.4
Provost	11%	33%	21%	12%	23%	2.0
Dean of Grad. School	6%	11%	14%	23%	45%	1.1
School Deans	13%	17%	22%	24%	22%	1.7
Department Chairs	36%	29%	17%	11%	7%	2.8
Center Directors	40%	33%	27%	0%	0%	3.1
Faculty Senate	10%	42%	24%	13%	11%	2.3
Data source: Survey Results provided by Faculty Senate

The survey results disseminated included 42 questions to which respondents chose integral ratings between 0 and 4 which corresponded to very unsatisfied, somewhat unsatisfied, neutral, somewhat satisfied, and completely satisfied. For most of the questions, a composite average score was released. For the overall satisfaction with certain administrators, breakdown of the five categories was also released along with favorable and unfavorable percentages.

The reported five-rating satisfaction breakdown for the administration appears in the informational graphic. In order to arrive at the two-category breakdown, the percent who voted for the two degrees of being unsatisfied were added together with half of the neutral votes to arrive at the total percentage that was reported as an unfavorable rating. The remaining percent was considered to have given a favorable rating to the administrators.

This approach attracted criticism, however. Vice President for Student Life Eddie Ade Knowles felt that “there are more than a few faculty that would be upset to find that their neutral vote was counted as ‘unfavorable.’” For example, while among the tenure track faculty who voted to express their satisfaction level with President Jackson, 37 percent of them were very unsatisfied, 22 percent of them were somewhat unsatisfied, 13 percent were neutral, and 14 percent were both somewhat satisfied and very satisfied. The survey reported this and an analysis that 66 percent of the tenure track faculty having voted unfavorable and only 34 percent favorable.

Another criticism Knowles had of the survey was that it “does not address the quality of life for students and from my perspective this President has absolutely done more for students than any other that I have served under.” He continued, “It seemed to produce the desired result—to paint a negative picture of what’s been accomplished by this president.” He also expressed that he’s been at RPI since 1977 and in his view “Much more has been accomplished since The Rensselaer Plan was initiated in 2000 then in any of the other years that I served Rensselaer.”

Turnout was also a point of disagreement between the reporting of the survey and administration. The survey reported that 188 people voted. However, 22 of these votes were not counted as they were anonymous. Though the information was confidential, the ballots were not tabulated if they were turned in with no identifying information. The full number of people able to participate is over 400. In comparison, the full faculty vote in the spring of last year on the grade modifiers proposal had a 43.6 percent turnout.

Knowles underscored that not half of those eligible to participate voted and Provost G. P. “Bud” Peterson said, “It is discouraging that the views of a few would be allowed to cast a negative light on the accomplishments of the majority here on campus who are working so diligently to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers.”

President of the Faculy Senate E. Bruce Nauman said that “about half of the tenured track faculty voted, which is unusually high for Faculty Senate votes.” He also said, “It’s regrettable that the administration has criticized the details of the survey rather than [address] the problems.”

The survey pointed out that few assistant professors, clinical faculty, and eligible administrators–or those with faculty appointments–voted. It also included a few comments e-mailed to the President of the Faculty Senate from people who were eligible to have voted. One person said, “I like the idea of voting on this matter. Yet, double envelope one way or the other, still there is a name. And being fully paranoid, this is not anonymous to my standards. So I cannot vote. Or you will receive mine without the outer envelope, just like the ones you referred to in your recent e-mail.” Another also expressed concerns about the use of names.

The last comment released was, “My satisfaction level is so low it’ll fall off your survey’s scale. I’m better off spending the time it would take to fill out the survey looking for another job, which is what I’m doing.”

Peterson disagreed, “Under the leadership of President Shirley Ann Jackson, we have made tremendous progress towards becoming a top-tier world-class research university. This is particularly true of the changes made to the Graduate Tuition and Student Support Policy under the leadership of Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Education, Thomas Apple.” Apple’s composite average rating of 1.1 was the lowest on the survey results followed by President Jackson’s 1.4.

The Board of Trustees seemed to echo this statement. During their annual meeting last month which followed the release of this survey they issued a resolution endorsing Jackson and The Plan. It began, “We the Board of Trustees of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute do hereby unanimously and without reservation commend Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson on her outstanding execution of the duties of President of Rensselaer as being totally and completely to the satisfaction of the Board.”

If one looks at the composite scores that were released, the scores received ranged from 0.6 to 3.2. The highest rating went to the satisfaction faculty had with communication between center directors and themselves. The lowest four ratings of 0.6, 0.8, and 0.9 (two questions) went to the questions that asked “In regard to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, how satisfied are you that the inputs of the faculty play an effective role in formulating Institute policy?” “In regard to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, how satisfied are you with the working relationship between the faculty and the administration?” and “In regard to the Institute President, how satisfied are you with the communication between the faculty and President?” and “In regard to the Dean of the Graduate School, how satisfied are you with the Dean’s policy decisions and administration of the Graduate School?” respectively.

While Jackson rated low for communication, the survey results showed she fared better for fundraising for the Institute as well as projecting its image receiving a 2.6 and a 2.7, respectively.

Outside of rating individuals, the question that asked “In regard to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, how satisfied are you that the current version of the Rensselaer Plan is an appropriate road map for taking Rensselaer into the 21st century?” scored a 2.0 neutral rating. The faculty was also asked, “In regard to the Faculty Senate, how satisfied are you with the Faculty Senate’s effectiveness in representing the needs and wishes of the faculty?” The average rating of the Senate was a 2.2.

The Secretary of the Faculty Senate, Debbie Kaminski said, “I think that its difficult to understand the survey” since there is no prior similar data from previous years. She said, “There is discontent, no doubt,” but said that the many changes that Jackson has instituted could have contributed to that and that they will have a “better concept” of what the data means next year after a similar survey. Next year, they plan on using an outside service to run the survey to quell anonymity concerns.

Nauman said, “my goal would still be to get a meaningful response from administration.” The survey is sure to come up at the next Faculty Senate meeting scheduled for next Wednesday.