Saunders Informants - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 11, 2007

RE: Saunders Informants

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Interested onlooker wrote:

I sure would like to see some conversation about re-establishing the College of Fine Arts--that was one of our flagship areas.

Alas, there seems to be no interest in this matter outside the School of Music. The theatre department is so new that few even remember the College of the Arts, and the art department feels it is better treated under COAL than as a stepchild of the former college.

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Yellow Dog wrote:

This is wishful thinking. A house cleaning will not occur, so do not be unreasonable in your expectations. Enjoyed seeing Bob Mixon at the press conference on athletics. Some things don't change.

I think Yellow Dog is not barking up a tree here. Some of the ones that folks here would [I]love[/I] to see gone are professional sycophants & are ready, willing & able to transfer their "loyalty." Others have tentacles that extend to the molten core of USM & the local community. And <gasp> others actually have useful skills & those folks may be perceived in an entirely different light when working under the "new management."

Date: Apr 11, 2007

xxxxxx knows that Cynthia Easterling Moore xxxxxxx had huge xxxxx issues with Maureen Ryan when MR was in the Dome (good for MR for getting out when she did!). I doubt that CEM will stand for working under another powerful, smart woman like MDS. She'd do well to go back to interior designing or writing error-filled memos or whatever it is that she does best.

I don't want to hear from her lawyer either. Keep it civil people.

-- Edited by Web Master at 15:12, 2007-04-11

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Invictus wrote:

I think Yellow Dog is not barking up a tree here. Some of the ones that folks here would [I]love[/I] to see gone are professional sycophants & are ready, willing & able to transfer their "loyalty." Others have tentacles that extend to the molten core of USM & the local community. And <gasp> others actually have useful skills & those folks may be perceived in an entirely different light when working under the "new management."

Thank you for making your point in general terms without dissecting anybody's personality, character, eating habits or sleep patterns. Or whatever.

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Invictus wrote:
Some of the ones that folks here would [I]love[/I] to see gone are professional sycophants & are ready, willing & able to transfer their "loyalty." Others have tentacles that extend to the molten core of USM & the local community.

As it was in the early days, Invictus has again nailed it in a few spare words. Most of those who post here have spent time at several other universities before joining the USM faculty. I have. In the main I've enjoyed my tenure here as it has been punctuated by association with many fine scholars of disparate disciplines who are also stellar human beings. However, I've never been exposed to, nor could I have imagined that a sub-culture of academic sycophants could exist and indeed thrive at a putatively major university. These individuals have survived here by morphing, altering their loyalties as necessary. If I could be granted one wish, it is that Dr. Saunders be given whatever authority she requires to excise these malignancies from USM. As Invictus points out, many are so entrenched that the task may be near impossible. Even so, I believe the patient can be saved, and the new president should be allowed to wield her scalpel and cut where necessary.

Diogenes

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Agreed. Cut the cancer out!

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Jane Smiley's "Moo" would be a good read for some . . .

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Invictus wrote:
And <gasp> others actually have useful skills & those folks may be perceived in an entirely different light when working under the "new management."

Thanks, Web Master & Diogenes. But I do want to re-emphasize the last thing I posted. There are people in the current administration who will strike many of us as "changed individuals" when in a different work environment. It happens all the time.

My original point, again redundantly stated, is that there are plenty of reasons MDS won't necessarily do a complete housecleaning. Yellow Dog is more right than a lot of us want to think.

Date: Apr 11, 2007

Southern Belle wrote:
Agreed. Cut the cancer out!

I hope that people do not see this change in leadership as their chance for revenge.

Date: Apr 12, 2007

Since I'm just an onlooker and not a participant, this doesn't carry much weight. Nevertheless, there are folks in the dome whose actions hurt a lot of people. Some of them are minor players, others major. But they "went along." It seems like it would but more healthy for the university if they were relieved of administrative responsibility. Hey, a faculty position is a great one. That's not revenge.

Date: Apr 12, 2007

It is unlikely that any of these former administrators would be willing to return to USM. If they did, they would have to reimburse PERS for all the money that they have received since retirement and reinstate their PERS membership. If you have been collecting $50K+ for the last several years, it would be quite a financial burden to return as a state employee.

Invictus · Status: Offline

Barry Piazza wrote:

It is unlikely that any of these former administrators would be willing to return to USM. If they did, they would have to reimburse PERS for all the money that they have received since retirement and reinstate their PERS membership. If you have been collecting $50K+ for the last several years, it would be quite a financial burden to return as a state employee.

I stand to be corrected, but I have always understood that if a person is drawing a PERS pension & returns to state employment, s/he must serve 2 years (or buy 2) to replace every one that has been used. The retiree does not have to reimburse PERS to reinstate membership.

For example, if a person has been drawing PERS benefits for 5 years with a 25-year vested pension & then returns to full-time employement, that person would have to work for 10 years to restore his/her 25-year status.

Again, I stand to be corrected & if I am wrong, I apologize for using up the bandwidth.

History · Status: Offline

PERS rules say that to go full time, for any position under PERS retirement, you must stop your current retirement benefits. After one or more years, if you again "RETIRE", your benefits will be recalculated based on the highest four years/16 quarters. You cannot change your retirement option.