Libertyand Power on alleged faculty complicity - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 28, 2004

Libertyand Power on alleged faculty complicity

Date: Sep 29, 2004

Robert…..Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the faculty at USM (yes, USM—not Southern Miss). Your posting on Liberty and Power is terrific, but there are a couple of things that I think you have wrong. If you agree, you might want to change them in your Liberty and Power posting.

First, there was no forced retirement in the settlement. It simply said that there was no assurance of continued employment after two years. Keep in mind that Thames contract would have been up then. This is easily verifiable by reading settlement.

Second, as I understand it (and like you, my information is second hand but from friends close to them), Anderson never told Glamser and Stringer that they would be fired if they didn’t settle. A judge of his stature is not in the business of threatening people. (However, it is clear that the board would NOT have fired Thames.) There was a lot of pressure to settle, and I personally believe it originated with the IHL board. It is clear Anderson would have kept all parties there till it happened. But there must have been pressure on Thames, too. My personal guess is that Anderson was told by the board to make sure there was a settlement. If Anderson could broker a settlement, the board might be able to squeeze out of this fiasco free and clear. And now Anderson turns up in the law firm that defended Thames.

By the way, anyone (friend or foe) who followed the Thames story in all its manifestations (and that includes the enrollment debacle, the reorganization without input, the handpicked deans, etc.) can see that Klumb will defend Thames to his dying day.

Date: Sep 29, 2004

Faculty Defender,

I've written in detail about the settlement before and was trying to keep it brief in the latest post--maybe too brief. I'll go back over my description of it and tweak it if need be.

However, if two tenured faculty members (who could retire but have no plans to) sign an agreement that specifies that their "continued employment" will not be guaranteed beyond two years, I think it's fair to summarize what happened as "they were forced to retire in 2 years." Had their status as tenured faculty simply been upheld there would have been no expiration date stamped on their continued employment. Charles Nuckolls and others are correct in saying that G and S's tenure at USM was successfully abrogated, even though Thames was not allowed to fire them on the spot as he had wished, and would be ill-advised to try the same maneuver in the future.

Also, there was no actual guarantee that Thames would be gone in two years (though that outcome seemed likely to many observers at the time). Don't you think that if Klumb gets his way, Thames' contract will be renewed for another four?

What Reuben Anderson told G and S and their lawyers behind closed doors I'm of course not privy to. But the IHL Board had the authority to reject any recommendation that Anderson sent up to them. The implied threat was that the Board would uphold Thames' decision to fire G and S unless they consented to the settlement. The fact that the Board had previously upheld Thames' "pocket veto" of tenure for Melissa Whiting (as was recently mentioned on another thread) meant that G and S had to take the implied threat very seriously.

All Judge Anderson had to do was to remind G and S that if they refused to settle, the Board "might" not go along with his recommendation not to fire them. He didn't need to threaten a recommendation that the firings be upheld.

Robert Campbell

PS. G and S also had the threat of a defamation suit by Angie Dvorak hanging over their heads if they didn't settle. That's another detail I left out this time around.

Date: Sep 29, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"All Judge Anderson had to do was to remind G and S that if they refused to settle, the Board "might" not go along with his recommendation not to fire them. He didn't need to threaten a recommendation that the firings be upheld. "

It is possible that Anderson did insert himself into the settlement negotiations as you describe. That has been stated in other threads. I do not know; however, settlement would not have required such obvious direction from the hearing officer, aka the "judge."

The attorneys for SFT (and ostensibly, for USM) would have been doing plenty of reminding about the continuing liability of G & S. Indeed, that would have been their professional obligation. Neither did Mike Adelman, the attorney for G&S, just fall off the turnip truck. He would have recognized that exposure and disclosed it to his clients.

Of course, the result is the same irrespective of who reminded whom. Prof. Nuckolls ignores that once-pendant sword when he refers to the "complicity" of faculty who are "comfortably cashiered" and "bribed" -- a characterization that is unfortunate and perhaps naive. While some faculty may be Thames's toadies, if would be foolish to think they all are. Wouldn't that be similar to asserting that "the French" or "the Norwegians" were complicit in the Nazi occupation of their respective countries?

Accusing G&S appears to be just another example of "blaming the victims" -- a common error.