In September 1999, over thirty percent of the faculty at USD responded to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-USD) questionnaire to evaluate the job performance of senior administrators.¹ With regard to fundamental questions about teaching and research, the general perception of the professors was that President Hayes, Provost Lazarus and the Deans were doing a "fair" to "good" job (ratings between "2" and "3").

The respondents in nearly every school/college perceive administrators to be performing "fair" to "good" in eleven of the twenty- five tables that summarize substantive issues. These included encouraging teaching, seeking diversity of opinions, communicating objectives, fostering collegiality, eliciting trust and respect, availability to faculty, availability to students, helping to recruit, encouraging initiative, seeking diversity of opinions and responding to critical situations. The administrators were perceived as doing a "good" job in five areas. These are in the areas of encouraging research with outside money, academic freedom, respecting peer review, hiring minorities and women, and refraining from arbitrary punitive actions. A perception of "fair" was seen in nine areas. These areas include encouraging research without outside money, leading the university, informing faculty, using faculty in budget making (of all the questions this had the lowest overall rating for the president and provost), refraining from unilateral decisions, eliminating income inequities, considering faculty recommendations, reacting to faculty concerns, and guiding the university. The responses vary by school/college. In general, Arts and Sciences rates President Hayes and Provost Lazarus lower than Business, Law, Nursing and Education. With few exceptions, the Deans rate higher than the President and Provost.

The numerical responses relating to the President, Provost and each of the Deans are described in more detail below. First, a brief description of the survey and some observations that may be useful in interpreting the numerical results are presented.

The form of the survey was originally initiated and developed by the Task Force on Administration of the AAUP, SUNY-Buffalo Chapter. More than sixty professors, including several authorities in survey research methodology, participated in its construction and implementation. The questionnaire, was administered, with minor modifications at USD in 1991 and now in 1999.

The main objective was to provide a confidential, constructive and rigorous means of holding senior administrators accountable to the faculty for their performance. This conforms to the AAUP's eighty-five year old commitment to shared authority among administrators and faculty members and to the belief that, as a result, both the performance of administrators and the long-term welfare of the institution will be enhanced.

The faculty was asked to assess the senior administrators according to the following grading scale:

Excellent (1), Good (2), Fair (3), Poor (4)

If the respondent was not sure or had no opinion, either a 0 was assigned or the question was left blank. For purposes of the analysis, a blank or 0 was treated as a missing observation and not included in the computation of the statistics.

The faculty are encouraged to make their own connections and comparisons, and to draw their own conclusions from the data reported below. The written comments are provided with only minor editing in order to secure anonymity of the respondents.