quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" From what I understood, Dean Pood hid under his desk for the better part of the Spring Semester. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Inside Observer
"In summary. Folks here seem to be astounded that all levels of administration here did not riot during the last year's debacle. The reasons cited are: 1. Every single one of them is a toady just lusting for their paycheck. 2. They are spineless Shelby-whipped cowards. Could this be true? That every single chair, director, dean, assistant dean and so forth on this campus, even those that preceded SFT's annointment, is scum? For those academic and scholars out there, think a bit more creatively. What other factors could have been responsible for this behavior?  Hypotheses above are incorrect, because many I know were on the verge of saying screw it--you make more money buying your summer on grants than you do with a piddly admin stipend. Others were cranking up the copier to get the CV out (yes, people who were already being actively recruited by Tier Is). Why stay for this nonsense then? The range of balls and "gives a s-t" varies across admin types. It is not a one shoe fits all scenario (unless you are into stereotyping). Other hypotheses: 1. Learned helplessness. 2. A last gasp at protecting your people during a nightmare scenario. 3. Lies and manipulations by the Dome sucker-punched these folks.  Feel free to add to the list."

---

4.  The job's not done.

FWIW, I think there are a couple ways of looking at the resurgence of this old and much discussed issue.  It may have been brought up yet again because of the sorrow, helplessness and extreme frustration regarding Noel Polk's departure.  It will have the effect, however, of dividing and conquering as people try to either defend or blame their pet administrator(s).   Administrators ought to have skin thick enough not to need defending by posters on an anti-administration anonymous but neither should blame and focus be scattered and diverted from its appropriate target. 

An alternative (and more cynical) view is that the criticism of out of dome administrators seems to heat up every time that a sensitive chord is struck in the nerve headquarters.  Anyone who follows the board closely will surely see the pattern.  Who would want to divert focus and divide & conquer now? 

Not in response to my last rhetorical question, I'm going to choose five people who have all been publicly (and almost universally) acknowledged as "good guys" on this and the last website.  Webmaster, if you think this is inappropriate, delete the paragraph.  Joe Paul, Lee Gore, Cecil Burge, Russ Willis, Becky Woodrick.  These people have the respect and support of at least a good number of faculty and staff. They have been discussed and given a pretty confident "thumbs up".  Have they been effective?  Have they publicly spoken out in opposition of Shelby Thames?  In this group we have people who attempted to leave, were de-hired in place, were not the first choice, were actually replaced and brought back, and were down-sized.  People who serve at the will of the president lose their ability to do any good in their positions when they lose those positions.  Using these five as examples, would we rather have them in their positions or not?

I am by no means suggesting a gag order on administrative criticism but I am suggesting a more critical analysis first.

"From my position of anonymity, I would be hard pressed to criticize anyone who failed to take a public stand that would jeopardize his or her own employment." -- ram

If they didn't mind pulling Dr. Harris out very late in a semester (and what did actually happen to his students??), and leaving Glamser's big classes untaught, there is not much concern about students, and none about instructors.  I have been scrupulous about what I say in my classroom, keeping to the book and never referring to any of this stuff.  Although I would hope that my students would not be left in the lurch, I would not bet on it.  Losing this position would not hurt me very much financially or professionally, but it would hurt my spirit and my heart.  I think about Frank Glamser often when I walk into class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" This is exactly what I was trying to say up-thread, but you said it much better. Thanks. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jean-Claude Van Damme
" 3. Thames is replaced by Tim Hudson--deans are toast. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Miles Long
" Sounds familiar. When I got my contract and offer letter, which differed wildly from the verbal agreements, I spoke up, and refused to sign it. Fortunately, I had not yet resigned from my previous employer. I was badgered by my chair and dean to sign the contract, but I refused to sign anything until it met our prior verbal agreement. So, I taught classes for 2 WEEKS until the dean pulled me out of my classes, and told me that I was breaking the law by holding two positions at the same time. He said he thought that was illegal. I mentioned that a well known professor had joint positions at LSU and Harvard, and he looked like that robot that Captain Kirk told "Everything I say is a lie. I am lying". So they screwed the students, and the classes were reassigned, and thank God, I did not resign from my previous position, where I received tenure and am happily employed. Threats of criminal behavior seem to be the norm at USM. To avoid further embarrassment, they need to schedule the contracts so that they are signed before the term begins. Of course, they could probably not care less about embarrassment. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are seeing the systemized dismantling of a formerly fine University."

---

Miles:

This is an old story that precedes this administration. When I came here in the Lucas reign, I was promised start up funds, years off the tenure clock and so forth verbally. When I asked that it be put in writing in the offer letter (not the contract), the admin types said something to the effect of that "In these parts, we do business on a handshake." I consulted with a colleague at a major institution, and he said get it all in writing. So I insisted on this well before making a verbal commitment to come. They hemmed and hawed and acted like I was just an uncouth carpetbagger. But they ultimately did it. Glad I did. When I arrived, I learned about folks who came before me who were screwed because they didn't get it in writing (this doesn't guarantee you won't get hosed, but it sure limits the possibility). The morale of the story? If it ain't in writing, it didn't happern.

IO 

Continued.

Lee Gore is an attorney.  He has to keep his mouth shut.   Russ and Becky are staff.  No one in the community really knows Cecil.  But Joe Paul has been in the system so long that he could retire with a terrific pension.  Not only that, he IS tenured faculty.  He has been active in Hburg.  His voice would have and could still made a difference in the community.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Incredulous
" The webmaster may surely pull this, but I shall try to post it. Joe Paul, who is known and respected in the community, stood by while faculty he knew not just as faculty, but as fellow citizens of the community--faculty he knew well--were pilloried in public by Thames and Klumb.  He wanted to save his job, so he wouldn't stand up for what was right.  He continues to do the will of Thames--to save his position.  He is just as guilty as anyone.  "

---

The only reason I remember this is my Texas A&M alum status,  but I'm sure the Printz reported last Fall, at the peak of the Glamser-Stringer vilification by Thames and company, that Joe Paul was interviewing for a VP position at Texas A&M.  Perhaps he remained mum about the strife at USM to preserve his options, hoping to secure a positive reference from the administration?

A comment about Tim Hudson and UH-Victoria.  The University of Houston is a school on the move, and UH-Victoria, though presently small,  is a satellite campus with tremendous growth potential.  No one should be surprised if Tim re-surfaces in Hattiesburg with a new resume showing extraordinary results at the helm of UH-V.  He's made no secret of his desire to serve as USM president, and his parting remark as printed in the HA, "I'll be back," was neither casual or ill conceived. 

 AE

quote:

---

Originally posted by: An interrupted life
"Joe Paul, Lee Gore, Cecil Burge, Russ Willis, Becky Woodrick.  These people have the respect and support of at least a good number of faculty and staff. They have been discussed and given a pretty confident "thumbs up".  Have they been effective?  Have they publicly spoken out in opposition of Shelby Thames? I'm  by no means suggesting a gag order on administrative criticism but I am suggesting a more critical analysis first."

---

An interupted life,

Your analogy is not applicable for two reasons: (a) the five good names you cite are not primarily in the academic side of things at USM. They are involved the important but non- academic side of USM such as student affairs, legal counsel, human resources, and affirmative action. They are not in the academic chain of command. Deans and chairs, on the other hand, are emersed in the academic side. (b) The five names you cite have been around long enough to prove themselves and have been judged to be honorable and responsible. They are known to be genuinely sympathetic to the faculty. I believe that at least three of them have even had rather unhappy experiences with the president.The deans and chairs, on the other hand, are new with no track record.They are yet to prove themselves. There is a vast difference between the five names you mention cf. the deans and chairs. Contrary to what you said in the last sentence of your post, it sounds to me that you are, in fact, suggesting a gag on administrative criticism. Let me tell you a story:

The writer Lance Morrow once pointed out (Smithsonian Magazine, October, 2001) there is more than meets the eye to the story about Teddy Roosevelt refusing to shoot that stunned, exhausted Mississippi bear in 1902. Actually, Roosevelt was rather ruthless and unsemental in the woods. He was an appaling hunger - 'myopic, relentless, and an unholy partnership of Mr. Magoo and the Tasmanian Devil.' He relied on the 'Ciceronian theory' - 'he who throws the javelin all day must hit the mark some time.' He was revered as kind and gentle because of the Mississippi bear incident, but he actually shot animals for 'the strong eager pleasure of it.' He relished in 'toasting slices of elephant heart on a prolonged stick over a fire . . . in Mississippi in 1902, TR refused to shoot the prototeddy bear. But in Africa in 1909, he shot his first white rhino when the animal was asleep." He provided 'moral cover' for the carnage by taking the position that he was 'collecting specimens for the museums - the interests of science and education.' He defended his use of so much amunition by the excuse 'plenty is available so why not use it?" Now, my question to you is this: why is there so much 'moral coverage' for the carnage that has been thrust on USM, and so much 'moral coverage' for those who did not speak up?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Person of Interest
"Of course not, Inside Obvserver. Stepen Judd is a notable exception. Isn't he a department chair? He did and said the right things. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Person of Interest
"foot soldier, you make a very good point (as do all of those posts). I was aware of what you said at the time I initially posted, but I made those comments anyway because Stephen Judd's admirable behavior has remained unaltered following his appointment to the chair's position. USM needs more Judds among their ranks at all administrative levels. "

---