Bond Issue - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Bond Issue

Date: Nov 3, 2004

I concur with AE's posts on another thread indicating that any funding for the university is good funding and that it's a shame to cut off our nose to spite our face with opposition to the bond issue. I supported the bond issue to the extent that I wore a button at university events and spoke in favor of it when asked but it's irrelevent because I couldn't vote for it and I certainly wasn't an activist on its behalf.

After the fact, my feelings are mixed. I don't have the same anger and frustration that I had when the educational bond issue failed in Lamar county. In fact, I have a newly discovered, even if only tiny, bit of empathy for the rural voters who voted against the issue in protest over the Oak Grove stadium.

Mostly, I see this as another example of the political fallout and divisiveness of a failed university president. This community is torn. Shelby Thames CANNOT heal the wounds and reconcile the parties. He is both unable and unwilling. In fact, he is inept. No matter what the political connections, the economic development propaganda, the athletic dreams -- this man CANNOT get the job done. The less than a simple majority on the bond issue is but another example.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

For those who feel that the bond issue was a good idea, you need to visit the USM Hattiesburg campus. There has been an enormous construction effort in recent years. You might not recognize the campus if you haven't seen it in 10 years. The state has been quite generous with construction funding for USM.

It would be a far better use of tax funds for the City of Hattiesburg to take care of the streets, water and sewage system. USM is doing well, except for faculty salaries, effective loss of tenure and shared governance.

If you want to consider why the bond issue failed. consider these possible reasons:

1. Shelby Thames is disliked. As president, Aubrey Lucas might have succeeded.

2. People with no connection to USM athletics would prefer not to donate every time they go out to eat.

3. Taxes are already high enough.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: FacAnon
"For those who feel that the bond issue was a good idea, you need to visit the USM Hattiesburg campus. There has been an enormous construction effort in recent years. You might not recognize the campus if you haven't seen it in 10 years. The state has been quite generous with construction funding for USM. It would be a far better use of tax funds for the City of Hattiesburg to take care of the streets, water and sewage system. USM is doing well, except for faculty salaries, effective loss of tenure and shared governance. If you want to consider why the bond issue failed. consider these possible reasons: 1. Shelby Thames is disliked. As president, Aubrey Lucas might have succeeded. 2. People with no connection to USM athletics would prefer not to donate every time they go out to eat. 3. Taxes are already high enough. "

The faculty and faculty representatives have already expressed displeasure or a lack of confidence with what is happening at USM. Their vote, on more than one occasion, was unambiguous. Given yesterday's community vote on the bond issue, it appears that a similar expression of no confidence may have now spilled over into the community.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

I thought it was interesting that the bond issues in Jackson & on the Coast passed.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

I was surprised in classes to find that my students were not strongly in favor of the bond issue. Of course most of them were not eligible to vote in H'burg. The general feeling I got was that they wanted to see improvements to classroom buildings and especially to dorms before athletic facilities were addressed.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: New Adjunct
"I was surprised in classes to find that my students were not strongly in favor of the bond issue. Of course most of them were not eligible to vote in H'burg. The general feeling I got was that they wanted to see improvements to classroom buildings and especially to dorms before athletic facilities were addressed."

And losing the fire hazard, sunlight-inhibiting, Mader to order banners is the place to start.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: New Adjunct
"I was surprised in classes to find that my students were not strongly in favor of the bond issue. Of course most of them were not eligible to vote in H'burg. The general feeling I got was that they wanted to see improvements to classroom buildings and especially to dorms before athletic facilities were addressed."

Shame, shame. It sounds like you were talking about something in class unrelated to your subject.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: New Adjunct
"I was surprised in classes to find that my students were not strongly in favor of the bond issue."

Yesterday a poster pointed out that, based on a limited sample, athletics does not seem to rate high among the reasons students choose a college to attend. It would be interesting to know whether or not others have made such an observation.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

I didn't initiate the bond conversation, nor did I express any personal political ideas AT ALL. I did encourage students to vote, and was very liberal in excusing absences for those who had to go out of town to vote.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

I supported the bond issue--It thought it was a good proposal for the univeristy and the community. I blame Thames and the administration for its failure. If they had expanded the issue to include some of the basic things the mayor was asking for this would have passed. Its a basic math problem: 45 % of the city is African-American. If you want something passed with a 60% majority, you need to include them. Duh! To "blame" blacks, as I see USM is doing in today's H-A is just wrongheaded, self-defeating, and racist.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

"wrongheaded, self-defeating, and racist."

As in -- typical SFT?

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Sentence from article in today's HA:

"It's not over," Southern Miss President Shelby Thames said. "We've got a university to build and we're going to do that. And we'll do that with or without a bond issue."

Where will the twelve million come from if not from a bond issue? Is there that much surplus money floating around?

Date: Nov 3, 2004

An editorial in today's Hattiesburg American reads: "Hattiesburg is a divided community. And until USM officials find a way to bridge this gap, their chance of securing passage of a bond issue to help finance athletic-facility upgrades is exceedingly small."

As I see it, USM officials haven't been able to find a way to bridge the ever widening gap between the administration and the faculty. Given the way things are going, could they ever find a way to bridge the ever widening gap between the university and the community?

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: New Adjunct
"I didn't initiate the bond conversation, nor did I express any personal political ideas AT ALL. I did encourage students to vote, and was very liberal in excusing absences for those who had to go out of town to vote."

And even you had initiated it - for SFT and his henchpeople to try to end political discussions is not in their job description. Go look at the Faculty Handbook. They are not supposed to interfere with free thought as long as it's not of a criminal nature (like everyone meeting in class to plan a night chalking experience -- all over his front yard).

Date: Nov 3, 2004

This message appeared on the USM Mailout site. Could anybody tell me what this is all about?

----- Original Message -----
From: Eddie A. Holloway
To: USM Mailout
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: VOTING Information

Persons entering the voting areas are not allowed to enter if they are wearing USM marked garments. It is considered as a form of advertising. Just for your information. Please pass on to others. eddie

Date: Nov 3, 2004

early Tuesday some poll workers thought that if someone wore clothing with USM or a USM logo on it that was advertising (like wearing a Kerry pin) and shouldn't be allowed to vote. the secretary of state's office told folks in Hattiesburg they were incorrect and these people could vote wearing clothing that had USM on it. was supposedly cleared up early in the day.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
was supposedly cleared up early in the day."

The USM Mail message went out at 1:08 PM, not very early in the day. Was it ever retracted?

Date: Nov 3, 2004

shortly after Holloway's post came two others clarifying the matter. On WDAM yesterday there was an interview about the situation. The circuit clerk (?) said it was rectified early in the morning.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"shortly after Holloway's post came two others clarifying the matter. On WDAM yesterday there was an interview about the situation. The circuit clerk (?) said it was rectified early in the morning."

I don't recall seeing a retraction by the original poster or by any other university authority. Moreover, WDAM is not the normal way official university statements are communicated to faculty members.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: query
"I don't recall seeing a retraction by the original poster or by any other university authority. Moreover, WDAM is not the normal way official university statements are communicated to faculty members. "

No, when I was at USM, I learned more from the Hattiesburg American.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" No, when I was at USM, I learned more from the Hattiesburg American"

No, when I was at USM, I learned more from USM. And what I heard from USM often scared the juhassafoos out of me. It still does

Date: Nov 3, 2004

the message from Holloway came out on USM talk listserv--it was in no way "official" as in coming from the university. people try to sell cars and find bushhogges on usmtalk. The situation was also in a press report on the Sun Herald website.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"the message from Holloway came out on USM talk listserv--it was in no way "official" as in coming from the university."

I always assumed that a message sent through a USM-provided vechicle of communication by a USM administrator should be taken seriously.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Wolf Wolf
"I always assumed that a message sent through a USM-provided vechicle of communication by a USM administrator should be taken seriously. "

If 932 USM recipients of the listserv message who were eligible to vote in Hattiesburg AND who had not yet voted prior to 1:00 pm AND who were wearing Southern Miss shirts AND who actually read the messages AND who subsequently called three of their friends who also had not yet voted but were eligible and wearing the colors AND if all of these people stayed away from the polls based on this information despite multiple clarifications to the original message available through various media AND if all of these individuals would have voted yes had they actually voted, then...the bond issue would have passed.

Clearly grounds to contest the results.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. MaderMath Revisited
" If 932 USM recipients of the listserv message who were eligible to vote in Hattiesburg AND who had not yet voted prior to 1:00 pm AND who were wearing Southern Miss shirts AND who actually read the messages AND who subsequently called three of their friends who also had not yet voted but were eligible and wearing the colors AND if all of these people stayed away from the polls based on this information despite multiple clarifications to the original message available through various media AND if all of these individuals would have voted yes had they actually voted, then...the bond issue would have passed. Clearly grounds to contest the results."

You are the wind beneath my wings.

ShelbyFreakoutThames

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Beaches
""

But enough about me, let's talk about YOU.

What do you think about me?

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Yes, C.C. - great response.

Date: Nov 4, 2004

I'm still trying to educate myself about the bond issue controversy. As I interpret the sketchy paragraph in the HA on-line, the mayor's 60 million buck bond proposal bundles the $12 mil for USM athletic facility improvements with an additional $48 mil for Hattiesburg street maintenance and community projects, and is supported by the organization which opposed the USM-only bond issue. Do I have this right?

If the $60 mil plan is later submitted to voters and passes, will it be financed by the same 1% hotel and restaurant tax, but a tax of longer (x5) duration? Or will the tax be higher than 1%? Does anyone know the particulars?

Is the larger scale proposition one which would be supported by those on this message board who did not support the $12 mil package, even though it still would not provide for any funding of USM academic facility improvements?

AE

Date: Nov 4, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"Is the larger scale proposition one which would be supported by those on this message board who did not support the $12 mil package, even though it still would not provide for any funding of USM academic facility improvements?"

There are probably as many answers to your question as there are posters on this message board. As for myself, I would support only the community improvement portion. I could not support the athletic portion until USM directs appropriate attention to the academic side of their wrecked house.