Investigator wrote:  

Do you think Thames united the faculty so that they are much more powerful than 5 years ago?

---

It most certainly did. What happened to Frank and Gary, for instance, can be likened to the shot heard round the world. It opened up meaningful communication among the faculty to an extent I never before witnessed at USM. Following that nationally discussed and embarrasing debacle, things rapidly deteriorated, one event after another, until the faculty reached its tipping point. Yes, the faculty is more "powerful" - in the best sense of the term. 

Faculty are more cohesive. We've developed a sense of unity, shared purpose across colleges. The conflicts of the past five years have forced us to think more clearly about what we do and how we do it. Ironically, USM is going to be a better institution because of the Thames conflicts.

One problem we face is a "de-Thamesification". Of course, there is going to be rapid turnover at the provost and dean level once the new president begins work. But lots of mid-level administrative positions--department chairs for example--have been filled with faculty selected expressly for their weaknesses-- their willingness to serve as toadies, and to buckle under to the most outrageous administrative directives.

What is to be done?

Person of Interest wrote:

---

Investigator wrote: Do you think Thames united the faculty so that they are much more powerful than 5 years ago? It most certainly did. What happened to Frank and Gary, for instance, can be likened to the shot heard round the world. It opened up meaningful communication among the faculty to an extent I never before witnessed at USM. Following that nationally discussed and embarrasing debacle, things rapidly deteriorated, one event after another, until the faculty reached its tipping point. Yes, the faculty is more "powerful" - in the best sense of the term.

---

 I've always thought "only in Mississippi" about this whole sordid episode--and I choose that word carefully.   Yes, there are 3rd tier universities in other state, but there is something abou this one--the composition of the board (and how it was chosen), the reticence of the papers to dig deeply  (despite excellent reporting by some), and the public disdain of education--that allowed this to happen to what should be a jewel for the state.   Let us hope that the lesson was learned.   Dr. Saunders can't do it by herself.   Perhaps USM supporters now know much more about what makes higher education ((and those who provide it) something to be cherished.  

Investigator wrote:

---

What predictions became true and which didn't?

---

Hey Info.  You seem to have all the information archived.  Do you have any predictions posted from the old FireShelby board and this board?  I wonder how many predictions came true.  Anybody win any bets?

 

asdf wrote:

---

TV Host wrote: Now that's the $64,000 question. Actually, it is a $79,500 + benefits question.

---

Did you mean a $79,500 + benefits question, or a $79,500 + benefits answer? (Or neither of the above).

LeftASAP wrote:

---

Hey Info. You seem to have all the information archived. Do you have any predictions posted from the old FireShelby board and this board? I wonder how many predictions came true. Anybody win any bets?

---

I wouldn't presume to determine which of many, many predictions have come true.  For example, is it true that USM has a "local" as its next president, as some predicted would happen?  It depends on how you define "local."  Our board Nostradmi themselves will have to step forward to claim the office pools.