Dana canned! - USM Forum -- Message Board

Cossack · Status: Offline

RE: Dana canned!

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Cossack:

Your point about how managers at mid levels of an institution act verses the pubic statements and actions of a chief executive is well taken. The best that I can do here is to say that I can see Dr. Saunders working her way through the institution, trying to get to know her managers, trying to separate good from bad; those who do not operate according to the principles she is establishing from those who will. This is something that takes some time, and is clearly circumscribed by the urgency of every situation and how much she trusts her information. I'm not speaking for her here -- clearly I'm not empowered to do that. But I think in watching her actions (there is now beginning to be a public record) she is working deliberatively.

One thing that has impressed me is that she seems well aware of how a mistaken reading on her part can ruin careers and lives. This is something we have not experienced recently. The tension between the action that may, if wrong, destroy an individual career vs. inaction that may prolong the pain of the many is important -- and we hope for leaders who weigh that dichotomy carefully.

The kind of president we have been hoping for is someone who has a gut instinct to do the right thing -- to act in the best interest of the institution while preserving the dignity and humanity of all players. Everyone deserves that.

But we also want a President who not only has strong instincts to do right, but who also waits to act until s/he has all the relevent information needed to make an informed decision. We then look for a decision that, even when its effect may be to demote or to fire someone, is not performed casually, but with great thought and as humanely as the situation will allow. That kind of action, particularly when a CEO is in a new situation working with people s/he does not yet know, working from agendas of their own that may not yet be revealed, is a treacherous one, as I am sure you know yourself. It is possible that a bad decision, even made for the right reasons, acting on bad information, can destroy the fragile trust that a new CEO wants to build.

I believe that the big picture is that the current administration wants to achieve what we had hoped in a new presidency. I also believe that it cannot act as swiftly in all areas as folks in all areas might wish -- or perhaps even as quickly as the new president might wish. A new CEO may wish to be very transparent -- but not everyone s/he works with is being equally transparent -- and s/he needs time to separate those folks out from the herd. It may be obvious to us -- it is not so obvious to her.

I am intentional in my use of the word "secrecy." As you probably detected in my previous entry, I employed the term to refer to the actions of the previous administration, because I believe it was a strategic and tactical choice used in exactly the way you suggest -- to gain, preserve and extend power.

My use of "discretion" and "confidentiality" as terms is intended to signify instances when what might be called "secrecy" is employed for other reasons that are not so nefarious, as I believe the case currently. The result, from the outside, may sometimes appear very similar. The test is what happens as a result of the deployment of the use of "secrecy" --

I actually don't think of myself as "kind" in the sense that you suggest (but thank you). I think of myself as a realist, accepting what for me is the reality that human imperfections not only mean imperfect leaders; but that leaders may need to use imperfect tools as they work with equally imperfect followers.

Rather than viewing the issue of "secrecy" in black and white, I tend to accept a gradation of information that ranges from fully open to tightly controlled.

The very same people who are bad leaders (cruel, distrustful, secretive) are also likely to have been bad followers. Just as they misemployed information as leaders, they quite likely did so as followers. Every leader/manager, in being "transparent", faces the strong possibility that there are those out there who will use shared information to create damage or chaos out of self interest, ambition, obstinance, or worse.

We have to acknowlege and accept that part of the reason why institutions must employ some degree of "discretion"; "cofidentiality", or "secrecy" -- is ourselves. To the degree that we tolerate those among us who abuse truth; who create lies; and who promote falsehood in order to advance their own agendas, we contribute to the feeling that some otherwise well-meaning leaders have that they cannot always be as fully transparent as the ideal we all hope for might allow.

This is university number six as a faculty member, and number eight if I include my two grad schools. I don't think this is a situation unique to USM -- there are other "good universities" (most, I would contend) that operate within this same context, which seems to me to be nothing more a fairly universal context of complex institutions.

Best wishes.

-- Edited by stephen judd at 10:26, 2007-07-13

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Part of the problem here is that there are far too many faculty members who want to allow individuals to "save face" through "confidentiality" or "discretion." This type of appeasement allows long-time abusers opportunities to remain in positions of authority or poised to reclaim positions of authority after a period of time.

There is a plethora of academic research that indicates that secrecy/confidentiality/discretion in organizations leads to poor outcomes, ie, gamesmanship and other ills. There should be no room for games in a professional academic environment, because the existence of such opportunities empowers bureaucrats and what political scientists call "free riders." Secrecy/confidentiality/discretion allows disparate treatment of individuals in virtually the same position -- e.g., vastly different raises for similarly productive individuals in the same academic unit via "personal agreements with administrators," etc.

Thames brought in and empowered a group of bad administrators, but there were plenty of self-serving bureaucrats left over from the Lucas and Fleming administrations who now have the opportunity to reassert themselves; allowing this to happen will simply continue the old culture of USM to perpetuate, with the good old boy network running the show and USM following the popular mantra of "know your role and shut your hole." That's not an environment that will allow the entire university to move forward, it's not an environment that will encourage free discourse, and it's not an environment that will allow productive faculty members (measured by stated university objectives) to be rewarded while unproductive faculty members (measured by the same stated objectives) are put on notice. No, we will continue to follow a culture in which "collegiality" and "seniority" are rewarded above the stated university pillars of "teaching," "research," and "service."

I liken USM to a forest in need of a controlled burn. It will destroy undergrowth and temporarily displace some wildlife, but it's in the best interest of the forest, long-term. Immediately adopting a policy of full disclosure and full transparency will hurt some feelings, but it will eventually cut out a lot of the graft, corruption, and dirty dealing within the university and will instill some semblance of confidence from the public.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

I first raised the question of the announcement not being posted by P.R. on USM's website. Dr. Judd made me realize that the people in the organization directly affected were informed of a move that was probably embarrassing to the employee involved. So I don't see how the issues Cossack raises really apply to this case.

The only question is who should be the one to inform the public at large, including faculty and staff NOT directly affected by the move. Is it really anybody's business? Is it news, and interest to the public, only because of the person's name? I think Cossack's concerns are not at issue.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 11:49, 2007-07-13

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:

I first raised the question of the announcement not being posted by P.R. on USM's website. Dr. Judd made me realize that the people in the organization directly affected were informed of a move that was probably embarrassing to the employee involved. So I don't see how the issues Cossack raises really apply to this case.

The only question is who should be the one to inform the public at large, including faculty and staff NOT directly affected by the move. Is it really anybody's business? Is it news, and interest to the public, only because of the person's name? I think Cossack's concerns are not at issue.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 11:49, 2007-07-13

Why sould anyone really care if the individual involved is embarrassed? She has abused her subordinates while in a position of illegitimate authority. SHe has shown no compassion and has helped orchestrate attacks on several faculty members, past and present.

Again, you are talking about "saving face." Until there are some harsh consequences for abusive behavior, individuals will count on the upper administration allowing them to return to their "first love" of teaching and research without having to allocute and own their misdeeds.

Magnolia · Status: Offline

I have no sympathy for the former department chair who is at the center of this tempest. Her demotion is long overdue and her arrogance and manipulative actions are largely to blame for her current situation.

However, I dont see what would be gained by a special news release to the local paper or a banner across Hardy Street or a bonfire on the front lawn, when that is not the way these changes are normally announced. I dont want a president who wallows in the Thames-created mire that weve been in for the last 5 years. I want a president who takes care of business in a dignified, discrete, and efficient manner and moves on.

This current demotion and the way it was handled says as much about the current administration as it does about the last one.

This latest news is a good thing. Lets move on.

-- Edited by Magnolia at 12:27, 2007-07-13

Patti · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:

LeftASAP wrote:

I first raised the question of the announcement not being posted by P.R. on USM's website. Dr. Judd made me realize that the people in the organization directly affected were informed of a move that was probably embarrassing to the employee involved. So I don't see how the issues Cossack raises really apply to this case.

The only question is who should be the one to inform the public at large, including faculty and staff NOT directly affected by the move. Is it really anybody's business? Is it news, and interest to the public, only because of the person's name? I think Cossack's concerns are not at issue.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 11:49, 2007-07-13

Why sould anyone really care if the individual involved is embarrassed? She has abused her subordinates while in a position of illegitimate authority. SHe has shown no compassion and has helped orchestrate attacks on several faculty members, past and present.

Again, you are talking about "saving face." Until there are some harsh consequences for abusive behavior, individuals will count on the upper administration allowing them to return to their "first love" of teaching and research without having to allocute and own their misdeeds.

Why should we care? Let me ask a question, What if it had been you? Let me repeat that, what if it had been you? Dr. Van Nostren fired, film at 11.

Would you not want that keep quiet, or are you one of those who crave attention? Just because it is Dana Thames who got canned doesn't mean we need to exploit that throughout Hattiesburg and the surrounding community. It needs to be handled within her department and college and NO WHERE ELSE. Its on a need to know basis and frankly Dr. VN, you don't have that need. LeftASAP was right in those who needed to know did.

Someone in her college/department leaked that information to be spiteful and that in itself is wrong. Granted, she was abusive in her power, look who taught her; but she doesn't deserve to be raked through the mud to make others feel better.

I sit on the outside looking in; so far I like what I see with the new president and how things are turning around for the positive. I'm enjoying more postive comments here on the board. I'm hoping that the discussions can continue in a postive line. That is why we should care.

Invictus · Status: Offline

I for one was disappointed that when the dept chair in question did not willingly resign, she was not locked out of her office.

Seriously, I happen to agree with Prof. Judd that this was handled appropriately.

Left Too · Status: Offline

My, my, my ... who could have fathomed that the cheeks of this person would be the first to be stepped on biggrin

Sorry, could not resist that one.

It would appear that y'all have an excellent PRESIDENT and that she intends to restore USM to the pre SFT days.

Good luck!!!

Cossack · Status: Offline

I am confused, it has just been stated that the person in question is arrogant and manipulative. Conversely, we should keep her dismissal quasi secret because it is unseemly to be truthful about what is transpiring. We can publically broadcast an administrator's faults, but we cannot talk about what got them fired?

truth4usmAH · Status: Offline

Left Too wrote:

My, my, my ... who could have fathomed that the cheeks of this person would be the first to be stepped on Sorry, could not resist that one.

It would appear that y'all have an excellent PRESIDENT and that she intends to restore USM to the pre SFT days.

Good luck!!!

Now, THIS is priceless! Thanks for bringing some much-needed levity to the discussion, Left Too.

On another note, our chancellor just announced that he's leaving Vanderbilt...any chance ole Shelboo will apply?? JUST KIDDING!

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

I am confused, it has just been stated that the person in question is arrogant and manipulative. Conversely, we should keep her dismissal quasi secret because it is unseemly to be truthful about what is transpiring. We can publically broadcast an administrator's faults, but we cannot talk about what got them fired?

Cossack and I have different attitudes of proper behavior concerning this "firing". Yes, we have heard rumors a person was arrogant and manipulative. So what? We don't know what the actual reason(s) was.

Her dismissal is hardly a secret since we are discussing it. The only question is should it be a P.R. announcement from the University. I say no because it isn't standard procedure, unless a crime was committed. It was announced through "word of month" until the paper interviewed the parties.

The faults of SFT were made public because there was no communication channel to the IHL to make changes. That has changed. In the case of Dana, you don't know why she was asked to step down. You can speculate with rumors all you want, but I wouldn't put it in the paper. All we have are the Dean's statements of something like "time for a change" or " move in a different direction". I don't recall the exact words.

I agree with the others who think things were handled properly.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 13:58, 2007-07-13

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Patti wrote:

Dr VanNostren wrote:

LeftASAP wrote:

I first raised the question of the announcement not being posted by P.R. on USM's website. Dr. Judd made me realize that the people in the organization directly affected were informed of a move that was probably embarrassing to the employee involved. So I don't see how the issues Cossack raises really apply to this case.

The only question is who should be the one to inform the public at large, including faculty and staff NOT directly affected by the move. Is it really anybody's business? Is it news, and interest to the public, only because of the person's name? I think Cossack's concerns are not at issue.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 11:49, 2007-07-13

Why sould anyone really care if the individual involved is embarrassed? She has abused her subordinates while in a position of illegitimate authority. SHe has shown no compassion and has helped orchestrate attacks on several faculty members, past and present.

Again, you are talking about "saving face." Until there are some harsh consequences for abusive behavior, individuals will count on the upper administration allowing them to return to their "first love" of teaching and research without having to allocute and own their misdeeds.

Why should we care? Let me ask a question, What if it had been you? Let me repeat that, what if it had been you? Dr. Van Nostren fired, film at 11.

Would you not want that keep quiet, or are you one of those who crave attention? Just because it is Dana Thames who got canned doesn't mean we need to exploit that throughout Hattiesburg and the surrounding community. It needs to be handled within her department and college and NO WHERE ELSE. Its on a need to know basis and frankly Dr. VN, you don't have that need. LeftASAP was right in those who needed to know did.

Someone in her college/department leaked that information to be spiteful and that in itself is wrong. Granted, she was abusive in her power, look who taught her; but she doesn't deserve to be raked through the mud to make others feel better.

I sit on the outside looking in; so far I like what I see with the new president and how things are turning around for the positive. I'm enjoying more postive comments here on the board. I'm hoping that the discussions can continue in a postive line. That is why we should care.

Patti,

I haven't been abusing people who I am supposed to serve. I haven't been exploiting junior faculty and students for my own benefit. I haven't been the recipient of blatant nepotism while committing these egregious acts. That's why I don't (and shouldn't) care if poor little Dana is embarrassed by her removal. She could have resigned when Saunders took office, but she was unwilling to relinquish her position of power, which is another indication that she is not astute enough to fulfill the role of chair.

As a side note, when any faculty member is fired, it is a matter of public record and is publicized in the IHL Board minutes. If you go to the IHL website, you can get .pdf copies of Board minutes with all names of all recipients of personnel actions (promotion, termination, leave, etc.).

The real question I have for all of the "it should be private" folks is How long did you expect this to remain private? A follow-on: Shouldn't Saunders have had a plan ready for the inevitable moment when she was asked about it? It seems that (most probably) someone in CoEP leaked the information to the media, and, given the history of the individual in question and her faculty, that should have been expected. Saunders should have known this was coming. Her media response indicates to me that she is also in the "face saving" business, a stance that indicates to me that she is willing to put the well-being of "bad actors" before the well-bing of the University.

Had Saunders made a definitive statement about taking CISE in a "new and more productive direction," the point would have been made without directly slamming Dana in the media. Again, though, I come back to my point: Why should I care if dana is embarrassed? Has she earned the respect of her CISE colleagues? No, she has abused them. Has she put the university's best interests ahead of her own? No, she has exploited USM to the greatest extent possible.

Dana Thames should serve as a morality tale for future administrators: pull this BS and you'll be out on your a$$. Unfortunately, there are those who want to "turn the other cheek." Well, I'm fresh out of unblemished cheeks.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren,

I wish I could add something to your post, but I think that about covers it.

Sorry4All · Status: Offline

I agree with Dr. VN. Things that are kept in secrecy were a BIG part of the problem. Although I left the university voluntarily, I have had an intrest in the plight and fate of fellow colleagues at USM. I am also thankful that DT got demoted from her position. She did some awful nasty things to some really dedicated employees at USM. Most of us left, by the grace of God, and have gone on to bigger and greener pastures to use our talents where people are grateful and pleased with our work and ethics. I know we should not bask in someone else's misfortune, but it is satisfying to know that "what goes around, comes around".
If all of us can deal with each other in an open an honest manner, then more can be accomplished for the betterment of academia. If we teach our students to be ethical in all they do then surely we can stand up to the plate and show them the way. DT will survive and thrive, her teacher will assure her of that. But this should be a lesson for all of us to behave a bit better toward our colleagues and employees.
So long USM. This letter is bitter sweet for me. This letter is my last and I wish you all the best. I will now close that chapter of my life and not look back.

Best to you!

Lisa G. Williams, Director of Teacher Education
Associate Professor
Indiana Institute of Technoology
Ft. Wayne, IN
lgwilliams@indianatech.edu

knarf · Status: Offline

This is great and all - but the larger question is who will replace DT? Which individuals over there are qualified to assume that post even on a temporary basis? Out of those qualified individuals, who would be willing to 'lay down a bunt' for the team? Will they ask FAK to be the leader - isn't she the most senior person in the department?

-- Edited by knarf at 15:26, 2007-07-13

ram · Status: Offline

What was it old Micah said about seeking justice, loving mercy and walking humbly? Good advice, I'd say, even for a skeptic like myself.

When I was a kid watching Dragnet, I always wondered why names had to be changed "to protect the innocent." As I mature, I think I begin to understand.

Personally, given the choice between justice and mercy, I hope I will err on the side of mercy whenever I am able.

Sometimes it is difficult to draw a bright line between seeking justice and just being plain ol' vindictive.

In my humble opinion, in this instance, the relatively quiet dismissal of Ms. Dr. Thames is an example of justice mercifully served.

Reporter · Status: Offline

The following was posted on the Hattiesburg American forum:

http://forums.hattiesburgamerican.com/viewtopic.php?t=7691

I was a part time student in the education program at USM on the coast. I felt and am still feeling the scorch of Dana's rule. This following list are things that happened to me. It is amazing that I graduated despite Dana Thames and her "friends."
1. I attended 3 classes during 2 seperate semesters and I did not have an instructor--one class did not have an instruct at all for 3 weeks (this was not after Katrina)
2. I was told that I did not need a class because of the catalog year that I enrolled in the program but I later was told that it was mandatory to graduate--this delayed my graduation.
3. Some of the classes required labs at schools but for 2 of those classes the lab location was not scheduled until 2 and 3 weeks after the lab was suppose to begin. One of the labs (a school) we (several students and the lab instructor) were block from coming on campus because the principal, central office and the board had no record of the request or the agreement.
4. There were several rules "bent" to accomdate other people yet when I asked to be placed for a lab closer to my work--I was denied that request. Later I found out that a fellow student was allowed to do her lab at a school that she was an assistant.
5. Having the same instructors for reading, behavior, and math--not much diversity. The instructors (most) were good but it was the same insight regardless of the subject.
There was a certain amount of pressure to keep quiet because I saw first hand how good--the best--instructors would question Dana about why there were not instructors, the block system, textbook changes, and questions about degree requirements that were constantly changing-these instructors were simply not called when it was time for class. However, some of these instructors were contacted and asked if they could suggest another teacher to fill a position.
I am fortunate because I remember when the program was not what Dana has created. I began my education at USM because it was a teacher's college. I tried to leave the program and go to 2 other local universities but I was too far into the program by that time.
I am writing today because I am thrilled about Dana stepping down and hope that USM CE program can recover.

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

I don't ever remember a press release when a chair was asked to step down. I know this is a different situation when we consider the history of this chair, but remembering the larger history, the handling has been the same.

Reporter · Status: Offline

I previously posted an item from the Hattiesburg American Forum. The person was asked to explain something they said. Below is the explanation:

http://forums.hattiesburgamerican.com/viewtopic.php?t=7691

I had 2 instructors that tried to find out why we did not have teachers for classes and/or why the labs for these classes were not set up in advance. Both were replaced unexpectedly. Both were not notified that they would not be returning to USM. The only way they found out that they would not be returning is because they contacted the school to see what their schedule was and they were informed that they were not on the schedule for the fall or spring.
Again, instructors were not present for some of the beginning classes and later I found out that the 2 "dismissed" instructors were contacted about helping Dana find a replacement at the last minute.

These instructors had been at the university as adjuncts for 5 years or more and were still in the public school system.
Thus, these teachers were very valuable to those of us who were not teacher's assistance in the class rooms.

Further, students that asked too many questions about not having instructors--one student called a local news station to report not having an instructor during the usual sign in and leave class--had many obstacles completing theor degrees--including being deleted from enrollment system--all though they had been a student at USM for 2.5 years there was no record of the student in the computer. They had to produce evidence that they took class at USM and had made payments to USM for tuition.
Some students simply dropped out for a semester due to the pressure and the demands of the constant uncertainty, misguidance or road blocks that Dana's administration provided.

These occuernces caused a certain amount of pressure to keep quiet. Even if you did attempt to get answers and explanations for why a class was added or why a class like--biology for elementary teachers--was not considered appropriate for an elementary education major--yet was required by the university under previous guidelines (and yes it did have a lab with it).
If you talked to anyone connected with the department other than BJ--Dana's assistant--they were too nervous and would not commit to anything. Even people above Dana were actually nervous during discussions about how unavaialble Dana was to the students and when asked questions about the lack of instructors and the disorganization.
I am not sure that this cleared my previous paragraph up so let me know if you need more details.
It is strange--although I have graduated and I have signed a contract with a school district and I do not plan on return to USM in the near future--I still feel the pressure to keep my identity quiet because of Dana Thames. Many of the replacement instructors were and I assume are still her friends and many work in school districts in this area. I can only image the backlash for me if they knew who I was--that is the pressure that I tried to write about.

-- Edited by Reporter at 07:14, 2007-07-15

Cossack · Status: Offline

I previously posted an item from the Hattiesburg American Forum. The person was asked to explain something they said. Below is the explanation:

I am sorry for the student who wrote this and the many other students who suffered from the actions of the chair of the department. They should not have had to endure this nightmare. I am embarrassed that it happened at USM and I hope that the department will try to make amends to those students. It would be very appropriate to have the deposed chair write letters of apology to all of the students affected. That is, unless the ex-chair says it would be humiliating to write those letters.

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

I previously posted an item from the Hattiesburg American Forum. The person was asked to explain something they said. Below is the explanation:

I am sorry for the student who wrote this and the many other students who suffered from the actions of the chair of the department. They should not have had to endure this nightmare. I am embarrassed that it happened at USM and I hope that the department will try to make amends to those students. It would be very appropriate to have the deposed chair write letters of apology to all of the students affected. That is, unless the ex-chair says it would be humiliating to write those letters.

Cossack:

A couple of mid level administrators begged the Provost and Prez's executive assistant almost three years ago to figure out a way to change the leadership in CISE. They chose to ignore this advice, and instead made the situation worse by promoting cronies to help manage the situation. There is a whole bunch of blame to go around on this one. Unfortunately, many of these folks will continue to prosper at USM and will not be held accountable to the students and faculty who were affected.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Unfortunately, many of these folks will continue to prosper at USM and will not be held accountable to the students and faculty who were affected.
Unfortunately, I think there is a high probability that you are right. In the exuberance of SFT departing and the arrival of a new President, it has been forgotten how much USM has deteriorated over the past five years. While it may vary from college to college, overall we have lost many of our most prestigious scholars and more may leave if they believe that we will remain at this lower level for many years. Scholars with a regional or national reputation make it easier to hire quality new faculty and they often mentor junior faculty. USM has to be reenergized. Deans and chairs have usurped power and violations of the hand book and governance rules are common place. If faculty get no support when they challenge these violations, they become less involved in their department and college. Eventually you do not have a department of faculty, you have a collection of individual operators who focus on their career and less on students and their university obligations. They are biding their time until they can get another job. That has already occurred to a great extent, but it can still be reversed if faculty are convinced that the future will be better. Unfortunately, things will have to improve rather quickly or many faculty will decide the USM is not worth their time and energy.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Cossack:

You continue to make good points but I take issue with statements like "In the exuberance of SFT departing and the arrival of a new President, it has been forgotten how much USM has deteriorated over the past five years." It may be true that some have forgotten -- not everyone has. The script may not be unfolding in a way that you like (or me either, for that matter, at least not everything). But that is not the same as saying that significant change is not occuring and that the balance of that change is more good than ill.

Like many people, I do have a kind of informal score card that I use to help me try to place the president's actions in a context I can understand. But I know that score card has limits -- the first being that it is MY scorecard. Every faculty member on this campus has his or her own. And then of course, there is the president herself -- who, after a very brief time in office, has begun to put together her own card, only without the same history we have. I am at the point where I have thrown my card out -- because at this point the field is so changed from May 21 2007 that the set of tests I had then are meaningless. We are now no longer in the time of "yes" or "no" tests but of a continuum of judgement in which we are, I believe, participating in the growth of a dynamic that began with the joining of a university community and a new president on an endeavor that by its nature is predictable to neither in outcome.

None of us, as individual members of the community, have a chrystal ball or a perfect plan that will guarantee success. It is one thing to attempt to read or even to try to find avenues to give advice to the new president and her leadership. That is not only human but can be helpful.

It is another thing to set up a series of "tests" which she must pass at each point in order to prove that she is going to be effective. No human being, and no leader, will ever pass that series of tests -- primarily because very few of us will agree on exactly what ought to be the measurements by which a leader is said to pass or fail. Clearly, you and I agree that "transparency" is a critical value . . . just as clearly, you and I don't necessarily agree on the rigor either of us would apply in application, or even what transparency means in any given circumstance.

What we can begin with is whether we share enough joint values. This President ennunciated from her first public interview what her values are. Our former President never did that -- we were left with a history to draw from, a history that proved sadly prophetic. And yes, we can ask her to live up to those values, to the degree that we ourselves understand them. This President has not only been unafraid to declare her values -- but she has a history which seems to verify that she lives up to those standards she sets for herself.

I would encourage all of us to look at the big picture. Let's concentrate on the significance of the many changes that she has made and the many actions already taken. Let's examine the convergence of rhetoric, action, and transparency as a learning process (for her and for us) leading to the goal of a better university (a deliberately vague goal because defining what that means is one of the most important jobs we will have in the next year).

It may be easy to mistake the utterances many people have had about being positive, about building community and trust, etc and about the good things they see in the president as an emotional, non-critical reaction to the years of oppression. For myself, I find it more complicated than that. Like many of us, I have had to live with my deep disillusionment every day for the last five years. That disillusionment is so profound that I find it easier and more comfortable to practice than its opposite. For me, to verbalize hope gives me something concrete to look toward. To verbalize hope that another human being may share my values is a way in which I force myself to commit to making the practice of those values a reality. I know the rhetoric of anger and disillusionment by rote -- I actually have to teach myself the rhetoric of optimism.

I'm not advocating that we should not maintain healthy skepticsm. But it is one thing to be a skeptic from inside the community, where skepticism is a useful tool for making the community better. It is another thing when skepticism signifies a clinging to a kind of perfectionist view that no human being and no human endeavor can live up to. Perfectionism is destructive, and the history of human effort is strewn with hopeful enterprises destroyed by those who could not endure, nor learn to work alongside the imperfections of their associates.

This is not an issue of personality for me -- it is a political issue, entirely pragmatic. It is a basic , for me, to setting the stage for success in human collectivity.

In recognizing my own imperfection I not only become open to imperfection in others, but I embrace that imperfection. Accepting the imperfection in others requires that I accept the imperfection in myself. The imperfection we share necessitates that we come together to talk, to listen, to argue, to reason, to persuade and to be persuaded in order to create a social framework (a university) that is better in its wholeness than the parts that make it up. Accepting my imperfection also means that I accept the possibility that at any moment, my critique may be flawed, inappropriate, or simply wrong, which is a state that allows me to be open to the critiques of others.

-- Edited by stephen judd at 19:36, 2007-07-15

Obviousman · Status: Offline

Godless Liberal wrote:

... A couple of mid level administrators begged the Provost and Prez's executive assistant almost three years ago to figure out a way to change the leadership in CISE. They chose to ignore this advice, and instead made the situation worse by promoting cronies to help manage the situation. There is a whole bunch of blame to go around on this one. Unfortunately, many of these folks will continue to prosper at USM and will not be held accountable to the students and faculty who were affected.

The same can be said of many departments and indeed colleges. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to rectify the damages and chase out the incompetence put in place by the gnome. The real fighting will start when Saunders casts her eye onto the polymer palace and the shenanigans over there.

OM

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

from what i hear, polymer science will self-destruct if given enough time and freedom.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

I'm not really sure where to begin this, but here goes.

As suggested, I do have a personal agenda at work. My agenda is to affect change that will help USM become a good university. To this point, USM has never been a good university. Using an honest, national scale, USM has had very small pockets of excellence and some larger pockets of quality, but USM itself has never been excellent as a university. The reason is that there have always been too many "locals" and "home grown" faculty/administrators who want USM to be, for lack of a better term, the plantation it has always been.

Saunders has, as stephen judd mentioned, created her own scorecard -- without the history present in all of our scorecards. This is a mistake. It is a usual and customary act for a new president, dean, or chair to say "all of that stuff happened before I got here, and I'm going to focus on the future, not the past." Leaders who do this are destined to fail. Why so in the case of Saunders and USM? Because, as I have said, there is rot in the core of the university, and we all know it. You don't hear too many oncologists say "Well, we're going to leave the softball-sized tumor on you liver alone and focus on preventing new tumors" unless the patient is hopelessly terminal. Is USM hopelessly terminal? We'll see. However, leaving poor administrators at the dean/associate dean/assistant dean/chair levels in hopes that a new provost will be able to rehabilitate them is folly. Saunders has been on the job for about 50 days, and she moves closer to adopting those bad administrators as her own with each passing day.

There's also the issue of perspective with respect to administrators in general. You either believe that faculty work for the administration or the administration works for faculty. At USM, the model has been that faculty work for the administration, hence the "plantation" mentality expressed so eloquently in Exit 13. Look around at excellent universities. At excellent universities, the administration exists to make the faculty's jobs easier. Power flows from the bottom up; if you don't believe it, just ask Larry Summers, formerly of Harvard University. Saunders may have her own values and plan, but she should be adopting OUR values as we speak, since SHE works for US. The responses I read consistently imply that we should be happy, since Saunders appears to be a benevolent dictator rather than a Thamesian dictator. Shouldn't we all demand a representative system in which the leadership mirrors the constituency? Or have we reached the point where we just want a master who don't whip us too often?

Pragmatically, it's difficult to do a 180-degree turn from what was. However, the longer the long-time bureaucrats and cronies are allowed to survive, the longer it will take USM to recover and the smaller the chance that USM will ever be a good university.

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

Saunders may have her own values and plan, but she should be adopting OUR values as we speak, since SHE works for US. The responses I read consistently imply that we should be happy, since Saunders appears to be a benevolent dictator rather than a Thamesian dictator. Shouldn't we all demand a representative system in which the leadership mirrors the constituency?

------------

dvn--i could respond more extensively, but i'll focus on the above portion of your post. i was here when lucas had to make the change of usm from a teaching only university to one where research was important and would impact tenure and promotion. if lucas had to get the approval of what you refer to as US at the time, the change wouldn't have happened. the US didn't want it. the majority of the faculty hired in the 70s didn't want to publish. but it was a decision that in the long run was a wise decision.

Invictus · Status: Offline

stinky cheese man wrote:
...but it was a decision that in the long run was a wise decision.

Was it? Why do you think so?

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

i base my conclusion on the type of faculty the university was able to hire subsequent to the change. i also believe that those teaching at a university should be actively involved in the knowledge-creation process.