Dana canned! - USM Forum -- Message Board

Rod Sterling · Status: Offline

Dana canned!

Lily · Status: Offline

Any reason given?

Also, there was another item I heard recently that another highly placed Thamesian would be leaving unexpectedly. Any word on that one?

frank · Status: Offline

I hear that they were upset with the performance of the department due to her lack of leadership - now that her daddy is gone - there was nobody to protect her...

Web Master · Status: Offline

The poster above is NOT Frank Glamser. Poster, I have sent you a private message. Please respond asap.

Web Master · Status: Offline

The poster in question has very graciously agreed to change his/her screen name. Thank you, poster.

Southern Belle · Status: Offline

Can anyone verify this is true?

Rod Sterling · Status: Offline

It was in an email from Maulding to CISE faculty. Take it to the bank....

Ghost of Carl Sagan · Status: Offline

Since extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, it would be nice to see the internal email.

I wonder who might take over as chair of CISE. Was that also included in the internal email?

carl

Cossack · Status: Offline

One down, many more to go before USM returns to its pre SFT self. The next step is long and slow, the hiring of quality faculty who not only are respectable teachers, but also researchers in their respective fields. (I realize that in some areas, such as performing arts, being professional active accounts for their reseach also.) The more good decisons President Saunders makes, such as this one, the more the faculty will be willing to wait until she can address their departmental or college problems.

Beck · Status: Offline

It's in the Hattiesburg American...

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS01/70711026

Lily · Status: Offline

Surprising they didn't let her pretend to resign.

Bookie · Status: Offline

OK, so how much of that inflated, repeatedly-raised salary does she get to keep?

Cossack · Status: Offline

Surprising they didn't let her pretend to resign.

I view that as a positive measure. If the President removes someone from a position because she is not happy with their performance, it sends a strong signal to other "bad" administrators that she is looking at them. Since she cannot remove all of them at once, it may make some of the bad ones feel less secure and more circumspect about what they are doing.

Southern Belle · Status: Offline

While Shelboo was in office:

Did he remove the clause that a faculty member returning to the classroom can not take their current salary with them????

Lily · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

Surprising they didn't let her pretend to resign.

I view that as a positive measure. If the President removes someone from a position because she is not happy with their performance, it sends a strong signal to other "bad" administrators that she is looking at them. Since she cannot remove all of them at once, it may make some of the bad ones feel less secure and more circumspect about what they are doing.

I agree, I was just surprised.

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

i heard she was offered the face-saving option of resigning, but said no. she was then "fired."

info · Status: Offline

WDAM

http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=6776213&nav=menu123_2_20

USM ex-president's daughter eased out of chair
July 11, 2007 03:29 PM

The chair of the Southern Miss Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education has been asked to step down.

Dana Thames, the daughter of former USM president Shelby Thames, will return to the faculty ranks.

School officials say she was asked to step down by the College of Education and Psychology interim dean Wanda Maulding, because it was time for a leadership change.

Reporter · Status: Offline

THE REST OF THE STORY:

H.A.--USM's Thames asked to step down

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS01/707120319

"Interim Education and Psychology Dean Wanda Maulding, who was appointed to replace former dean Willie Pierce shortly before Shelby Thames left office, said it was her decision to return Dana Thames to a faculty role and not an order passed down from the new president, Martha Saunders. "This absolutely was not something Dr. Saunders requested, but I wouldn't do anything without making my superiors aware," Maulding said. "I do appreciate that she said, 'You run your college, and I'll support what you do.'"

Emma · Status: Offline

It's about time -

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

This episode is another strange moment at USM. Despite her public statements, this action did not begin with Interim Dean Maulding. The current interim dean and associate dean (along with Dr X) worked hard to accomodate and promote Dr. D Thames' interests over the past several years--which included Dr. Thames' raises and removal of Dean Pierce from his position. They were rewarded with interim positions in the dean's office. With Drs. Maulding and Styron in place, Shelby clearly believed that Dr. D Thames would be secure in her position. It must have been quite a shock to the Thames camp when that "friendship" was jettisoned in favor of retaining new found power. Maulding and Styron were put in place with no input from the college except from the Thames inner circle (of which they were loyal members). Their support among the rank and file in COEP is very limited. Dr. Saunders would be well advised at this point to make an effort to understand the true "dynamics" (Maulding's word) at work in the COEP at this moment.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Do you find it strange that USM News still has no information about this change posted to the USM website? Why do people have to read the H.A. to get USM information?

Southern Belle · Status: Offline

It has been embarrassing to me over the years to receive a telephone call from off campus about something which has happened on campus and I have no clue to the event.

With today's technology, there is no reason that the campus community should know what is going on before the outside community.

knarf · Status: Offline

Who is in line to replace Thames - will it be FAK or DW?

Bookie · Status: Offline

Southern Belle wrote:

It has been embarrassing to me over the years to receive a telephone call from off campus about something which has happened on campus and I have no clue to the event.

With today's technology, there is no reason that the campus community should know what is going on before the outside community.

This is something that should be addressed, of course! With all that Dr. Saunders has to deal with, this may be lower on the list than other things, but I am sure she will address it. She is surely well aware of the many "surprise" memos and edicts and rules that popped out of the dome the last 5 years - many of which were shot down due to huge unrest by the faculty.

I feel sure that Dr. Saunders understands the importance of good PR and inclusion of the faculty. We are all still adjusting to a new admin, I think.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Southern Belle wrote:
It has been embarrassing to me over the years to receive a telephone call from off campus about something which has happened on campus and I have no clue to the event.

With today's technology, there is no reason that the campus community should know what is going on before the outside community.

Southern Belle and others:

In response to calls and the comments on board, I contacted Margie by email this afternoon. She responded very quickly and informatively.

Margie indicated to me that announcements of chair changes are normally handled within the unit and not publicized. Dean Maulding did inform her faculty previous to the news getting public --- apparently someone may have called the news in when the announcement was made within the department.

My own take is that the President hoped to keep this fairly low key but she needed to respond to reporters who were turning it into a story. Old habits die hard -- my guess is that, since they usually don't make these kind of announcement routinely as press releases, it just didn't connect to put it out as breaking news through the USM system. This is my own speculation and should not be taken as fact.

In an email to me, Dr. Saunders indicated that she and Margie had already conversed this afternoon about how to improve on these things in the future. Her closing sentence was: " . . . we can always do better."

It would be impossible to believe that we will work with this President over the years and never disagree. But in every encounter I have had with her, I have found her to be candid -- and very interested in making her working processes as transparent as the needs of the office allow.

It is important for us to continue to give voice these concerns as we move forward. They are a legacy of our recent past -- and I believe that the new administration does not want to repeat the secretiveness and deception that have caused this community so much pain.

This president, from what I can see, is constantly looking for ways to "fine tune" communication within the university. She has shown a remarkable ability to react when concerns are expressed, and I expect that to continue.

I've also learned that she can say no -- but only after carefully listening.

I hope this helps answer some of the concerns -- I'd be suprised if we don't continue to see these things improve.

Cossack · Status: Offline

My own take is that the President hoped to keep this fairly low key but she needed to respond to reporters who were turning it into a story. Old habits die hard -- my guess is that, since they usually don't make these kind of announcement routinely as press releases, it just didn't connect to put it out as breaking news through the USM system. This is my own speculation and should not be taken as fact.

Why would you want to keep information low key? If this really is a university, information should be kept secret? If this really is the desire of the President, then USM is doomed. Only insecure administrators keep things secret because it gives them power. Since they do not command power by character and ability, they create power by making secret deals. If the President wants to restore the quality of USM to its previous level, she needs to be open and transparent. We have had 5 years of a secret and underhanded administration who used secrecy and information as a tool to subjugate faculty. Why do we want to encourage another President to make secret deals? If faculty are to act as part of the governance process (as they do in real universities) we need information and clear signals, not secrecy. I am disappointed that some faculty believe that hiding information is a good thing.

info · Status: Offline

Story has legs:

SH, 7/12/07

http://www.sunherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/96632.html

Daughter of ex-USM president taken off administrative job

WLOX TV

http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=6780287&nav=6DJI

WMC TV (Memphis)

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6780264

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Thanks for that explanation. Stephen. It makes more sense now. If Dana Thames had resigned as chair, then it would have been appropriate to announce that news through Public Relations. However, when a person is essentially fired, that is a more sensitive personnel matter between the employer and employee. It seems more polite to let the employee disclose this to the public and the employer only inform those directly impacted about the decision.

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

My own take is that the President hoped to keep this fairly low key but she needed to respond to reporters who were turning it into a story . . . . Why would you want to keep information low key? If this really is a university, information should be kept secret? If this really is the desire of the President, then USM is doomed. Only insecure administrators keep things secret because it gives them power. Since they do not command power by character and ability, they create power by making secret deals. If the President wants to restore the quality of USM to its previous level, she needs to be open and transparent. We have had 5 years of a secret and underhanded administration who used secrecy and information as a tool to subjugate faculty. Why do we want to encourage another President to make secret deals? If faculty are to act as part of the governance process (as they do in real universities) we need information and clear signals, not secrecy. I am disappointed that some faculty believe that hiding information is a good thing.

Cossack, I imagine that Stephen will reply soon, but in the interim please note that I doubt he was equating "low key" with "secret." In fact, I don't know that "low key" can be read as "secret." JL

stephen judd · Status: Offline

I think LeftASAP and my dear Jameela both clearly understood my meaning and also the proprieties of a complex issue. Cossack, I'm sorry to be lumped into the "some faculty" who believe in hiding information.

It is tempting to say that only insecure faculty assume that everything an administrator does that is not publicized to the world is the result of a naked lust for power. It is true that we have just experienced an overly secretive administation and we have been scarred by that. It is just as true to say that virtually everthing this President has said and done so far has been in contrast to that.

I do not believe it is legitimate to say that an administrator has no reason for sometimes maintaining confidentiality during deliberative processes. There are frequently occasions when discretion may be necessary.

I don't look for leaders who tell me everything they know or do -- I look for leaders who know how to employ confidentiality selectively and wisely, because I assume that there are occasions when confidentiality is a necessary part of the process. I know that from my own experience in life, whether it is as a member of a family, or as a director of a program or department. I look for leaders who believe in openness and transparency as ideals -- but who are strong enough to know that occasionally acting in the best interest of the whole may mean being discrete.

It is true that these very good reasons for maintaining a certain degree of confidentiality can be misused by unscrupulous leaders. But it does not follow that every leader who employs confidentiality is, ergo, unscrupulous.

It is also the reason why the best leadership builds trust -- because trust is what enables the public (us) to be patient on those occasions when it may not be good policy to reveal ongoing discussions. The fault of the Thames administration was not in employing secrecy -- it was in the wholesale employment of secrecy and covertness as a guiding principle, rather than an exception to the norm of transparency. It was in our discovery that its employment of secrecy was frequently in order to use secrecy not for the greater good, but for its own ends -- particularly when those ends seem to mean profit for some at the expense of others.

That administration abused the priviledge that the public necessarily yields to its leadership to have the good judgement about how to appropropriately manage the occasions when confidentiality may be necessary. It did not manage its confidentiality well or impartially.

Anyone who has been reading my entries for the last four years will know that I have been a strong advocate for transparency of information. But I also don't think I am naive nor do I feel obligated to be blindly consistent. Life has gray areas. The issue of transparency is one of them.

The very fact that human relationships and human institutions are imperfect is the very reason the issue of trust is so critical to maintaining the success of all human relationships, whether they are of love, kinship, or power. I am firmly convinced after over a half century on earth that the greatest violation of one human to another is the violation of trust -- and that violation can take many forms. Some are overt -- like telling lies. Others are more subtle -- like indulging in gossip or slander. The Thames administration, early on, so egregiously violated that trust that there was no hope of recovering it, even had it intended to do so.

This administration has signalled its hope, and its plan to be transparent. In my view, it has not betrayed that promise. Let's stop acting as though we still have the former president running the show.