SFT to Keep Becky???? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 9, 2004

SFT to Keep Becky????

Date: Oct 9, 2004

Thanks Faculty Senate. Also thanks to President Thames for allowing the faculty to provide input to this decision. I suggest President Thames start asking for faculty input at the beginning of decision-making and not at the last minute.

Date: Oct 9, 2004

Sorry to "RAIN" on this (for those not in Hburg, it's been raining all night and will most of the day)

The article says that SFT will keep the position, not Becky.........................So the original question still arises, will he keep her??????

Date: Oct 9, 2004

Looks to me like this is a Win-Win but mostly a win for SFT. He has basically said, "Do what I say and we save $65,000; but I will do whatever the FacSen says." (Daddy knows best, but if you stubborn children persist, I'll let you have your way.)

Now, every time anyone needs money for anything, he can say, "Boy, if we had saved that $65,000 we could do what you want, but we don't have the money because you spent it contrary to my advice." (Maybe next time you'll remember that I am smarter than you are.)

It's not just a question of "Can we keep Becky?". There is also the matter of "Is Becky willing to stay in a position where she knows she'll get little administrative support?" If Becky leaves, the administration can install another henchcrony at -- surprise -- the current or a higher salary.

Seems to me shared governance should mean more than just passing the buck.

Date: Oct 9, 2004

Becky Woodrick, if you are reading this, I hope to high heaven you land a better job than the one you have for the next couple of months because you deserve better treatment. But you are not the only one who has been treated like damaged goods and that should at least make you feel less targeted -- you've just joined a growing group of ethical people who SFT felt the need to punt. If you are "allowed" to stay -- stick to your principles. We're pulling for you.

Date: Oct 10, 2004

Becky staying or not isn’t the issues. It’s if the administrative staff with utilize the position as it should be. The position’s ability has already eroded over the last few months. This is not the first time SFT has been put in a spot to keep a position/person, but it doesn’t mean that the position/person has any influence in the administration’s policy or actions. If you have to keep them but don’t want to, just ignore them.

As a matter of fact I’m sure some changes have already been made that puts SFT’s “people” over areas that is more key to his positions/actions. I expect more “shifting” down the road.

Also, I do think that the timing is interesting. (And I’m not talking about the lawsuits)
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what filters(leaks) out over the next month or so.

Date: Oct 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Things2Come
"Becky staying or not isn’t the issues. It’s if the administrative staff with utilize the position as it should be. The position’s ability has already eroded over the last few months. This is not the first time SFT has been put in a spot to keep a position/person, but it doesn’t mean that the position/person has any influence in the administration’s policy or actions. If you have to keep them but don’t want to, just ignore them. As a matter of fact I’m sure some changes have already been made that puts SFT’s “people” over areas that is more key to his positions/actions. I expect more “shifting” down the road. Also, I do think that the timing is interesting. (And I’m not talking about the lawsuits) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what filters(leaks) out over the next month or so. "

The above post may seem kind of murky but shouldn't be ignored. One of the big Thames inefficiencies is duplicating efforts because he doesn't like what he hears from the original source. He finds it easier to replace people than to convince people. The only ones he listens to are the ones that tell him what he wants to hear. Don't forget the key question What's In It For Me? My guess is that the timing T2C is referring to has something to do with the upcoming IHL board meeting.

Date: Oct 11, 2004

WIIFM you are correct. SFT hired a risk manager because L. Gore was counseling the administration against firing a particular professor and in general urging the admin. to cool it on its desire to clean house of "unruly" profs. In retrospect, Gore was right. Thus, when what's his name was hired, SFT went to him on legal issues where Gore should have been the point man. Not a very efficient business model in my view, but indicative of SFT's business sense, which is one reason, as I've stated before, he remained a professor at a university instead of going into the business world. Although, I think he still fancies himself an Al Dunlap type of guy.

Date: Oct 11, 2004

I agree with the last few posts - and if all else fails, Blame Hudson!!

Date: Oct 11, 2004

Now that you’ve mentioned it, it is kind of murky.

(on two levels)
It’s gloomy: But I’ve seen and heard too much from the inside to otherwise.
AND
It’s kind of cloudy: But knowing some things that only a few know makes it hard to post, so I spent a lot of time just making sure was as general as possible.

In my own defense: It was late and Hudson made me do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Oct 13, 2004

What's the story on this? The newspaper says Thames will honor the Senate vote and that the position will be maintained as a full time, but word about town is that it will be half-time and moved into HR. What is the truth of this?