Character is made and character is known when character is tested," said Dvorak.

And, Angie dear, you certainly are a character. And you were tested, and you proved to us that yours is vile.

Here's a question or two: is Angie REALLY in a high-pressure, perform-or-die job now? Will she actually have to show the world how great she is and how much she knows? Will SFT be there for her, always, or has he actually cut her loose and left her all alone in the Big Woods?
(Ok, it was three questions.)

Let me clarify, Yes, he'll always be there for her - for a number of reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: thenextstateover
"She smiled. She cracked jokes. And she looked like a woman with a new lease on life - and her career. Kissing up to the Shelboo has its advantages - here's to those careers who Shelboo and Waaangie have ruined -- may they recover as quickly."

---

Yes, I'll miss the red-eyed, clenched-fists Angie D. of yore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Chicken Soup Lady
"But Shelboo is 68 years old. What does AD plan to do when he's no longer - - - available."

---

Chicken Soup Lady,

You're a bit out of touch.  Haven't you seen the onslaught of ads and television commercials?  Shelboo is, uhhh,   resurgent, thanks to.....VIAGRA,  BABY!!!!!

AE

Let's place bets on how long Angie lasts at the ADP. She never stays anywhere more than about 3 years. Waddya bet she has to "move forward" to another "opportunity" in a year or two?

I don't know what was on the minds of the USM Faculty Senate leadership, back when they engineered the compromise that was described in the Hat Am article from June 19.

But I have some experience dealing with Faculty Senate Presidents, and it sure looks to me like one of those deals Faculty Senate Presidents cut, on the basis of assurances given behind closed doors by University Presidents.

A lot of those deals turn out badly.

I think Shelby Thames told Dave Beckett that without the deal, Angie Dvorak would remain in a high administrative post at USM until she retired. By then the IHL Board had ordered Thames to get rid of her, but we're operating with hindsight now: we've figured out that the Board required Thames to jettison his Kentucky mafia in return for the its continued sponsorship of his presidency. Beckett may not have realized all of that at the time, or--like many a Faculty Senate President--he may have been temperamentally disinclined to call Thames' bluff.

In essence, the Faculty Senate leadership decided to accommodate Thames on a limited basis--in order to restore communication with a treacherous autocrat. If the abandonment of confrontational tactics has slowed the pace of destruction, even slightly, I've yet to see evidence of it. (Preserving the position of Affirmative Action Officer still allows Thames to fire the current AAO and, as contributors to this board have noted, it gives him a new way to blame the Faculty Senate, for allegedly requiring him to waste money. Is there anything else?)

What Faculty Senate Presidents most often want, when they are elected, is a quiet year. A quiet year under Shelby Thames is a year in which Thames wrecks the university unimpeded.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I don't know what was on the minds of the USM Faculty Senate leadership, back when they engineered the compromise that was described in the Hat Am article from June 19. But I have some experience dealing with Faculty Senate Presidents, and it sure looks to me like one of those deals Faculty Senate Presidents cut, on the basis of assurances given behind closed doors by University Presidents. A lot of those deals turn out badly. I think Shelby Thames told Dave Beckett that without the deal, Angie Dvorak would remain in a high administrative post at USM until she retired. By then the IHL Board had ordered Thames to get rid of her, but we're operating with hindsight now: we've figured out that the Board required Thames to jettison his Kentucky mafia in return for the its continued sponsorship of his presidency. Beckett may not have realized all of that at the time, or--like many a Faculty Senate President--he may have been temperamentally disinclined to call Thames' bluff. In essence, the Faculty Senate leadership decided to accommodate Thames on a limited basis--in order to restore communication with a treacherous autocrat. If the abandonment of confrontational tactics has slowed the pace of destruction, even slightly, I've yet to see evidence of it. (Preserving the position of Affirmative Action Officer still allows Thames to fire the current AAO and, as contributors to this board have noted, it gives him a new way to blame the Faculty Senate, for allegedly requiring him to waste money. Is there anything else?) What Faculty Senate Presidents most often want, when they are elected, is a quiet year. A quiet year under Shelby Thames is a year in which Thames wrecks the university unimpeded. Robert Campbell "

---

Bob:

 

there was no "deal." Fac Sen had nothing to do with Angela's appointment to the Research Foundation other than to breathe a big sigh of relief. Remember, the original issue was Angie's credentials and how they affected her title; her standing on on Grad Council and her role in the P&T process. The Senate's investigation was primarily amied at finding the truth about, and if necessary correcting the problem. The larger issue of how appointments are made, how job searches for appointed administrative positions happen -- these are of great concern to the Senate but not necessarily things that are easily visible to us. That is a larger and ongoing issue of concern.

There may be a conspiracy somewhere but it does not involve the Senate, which has no standing vis a vis the President's executive appointments.

I respect you a lot but you are way off base on this one and I take some umbrage at the idea that after the hell we've been through including numerous public votes sticking our necks out on the line that the Senate would "cave" so easily -- even if it were in a position to make a deal, which it manifestly was not.

 

 

 

 

Stephen Judd and Reporter,

In my previous post I wasn't trying to say that the USM Faculty Senate leadership arranged for Angie Dvorak to be moved out of VP for Research and Economic Development and into the position of Director of the USM Research Foundation.

Here's what I got out of the Hat Am coverage back in June: The Faculty Senate leadership appeared to agree to a face-saving compromise whereby Angie Dvorak could claim that she wasn't really misrepresenting herself when she got hired at USM, just following "professional resume" practices instead of "academic resume" practices.

It was my inference from this story that the FS leadership agreed to the face-saving compromise in return for assurances that AD would stop working for USM altogether--or at least be removed from the Vice-Presidential position for Research and Economic Development.

"Academic resume" standards are precisely those that applied in her case, as everyone on the Faculty Senate knew. Besides, "professional resume" practices don't justify claiming to be a Professor of English at the University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY) when in fact you were not. So I took it for granted that no member of the USM Faculty Senate would have endorsed the "professional resume" compromise--unless they believed that they had to do it to make her exit from USM possible.

I've assumed that the FS leadership was not worried about AD suing them for defamation if they did not accept the compromise. But maybe I was wrong about that, and the threat was still on the table.

I've also assumed that the FS leadership would never have accepted the "professional resume" compromise without expecting something substantial in return--precisely because the compromise was transparently bogus, and AD had done such terrible damage to USM through her pursuit of revenge against those who revealed her misrepresentations.

Now maybe the Faculty Senate leadership didn't actually accept AD's excuse, or endorse the "professional resume" cover story. I wasn't there, and hardly anything about the innner workings of the Faculty Senate was appearing on this board at the time, so I had to rely on the same newspaper account that The Question reproduced below.

If there was, in fact, no "professional resume" compromise, the Faculty Senate leadership needs to get in front of the media and say so. Indeed, they should have gotten in front of the media back in June and said so.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Stephen Judd and Reporter, In my previous post I wasn't trying to say that the USM Faculty Senate leadership arranged for Angie Dvorak to be moved out of VP for Research and Economic Development and into the position of Director of the USM Research Foundation. Here's what I got out of the Hat Am coverage back in June: The Faculty Senate leadership appeared to agree to a face-saving compromise whereby Angie Dvorak could claim that she wasn't really misrepresenting herself when she got hired at USM, just following "professional resume" practices instead of "academic resume" practices. It was my inference from this story that the FS leadership agreed to the face-saving compromise in return for assurances that AD would stop working for USM altogether--or at least be removed from the Vice-Presidential position for Research and Economic Development. "Academic resume" standards are precisely those that applied in her case, as everyone on the Faculty Senate knew. Besides, "professional resume" practices don't justify claiming to be a Professor of English at the University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY) when in fact you were not. So I took it for granted that no member of the USM Faculty Senate would have endorsed the "professional resume" compromise--unless they believed that they had to do it to make her exit from USM possible. I've assumed that the FS leadership was not worried about AD suing them for defamation if they did not accept the compromise. But maybe I was wrong about that, and the threat was still on the table. I've also assumed that the FS leadership would never have accepted the "professional resume" compromise without expecting something substantial in return--precisely because the compromise was transparently bogus, and AD had done such terrible damage to USM through her pursuit of revenge against those who revealed her misrepresentations. Now maybe the Faculty Senate leadership didn't actually accept AD's excuse, or endorse the "professional resume" cover story. I wasn't there, and hardly anything about the innner workings of the Faculty Senate was appearing on this board at the time, so I had to rely on the same newspaper account that The Question reproduced below. If there was, in fact, no "professional resume" compromise, the Faculty Senate leadership needs to get in front of the media and say so. Indeed, they should have gotten in front of the media back in June and said so. Robert Campbell "

---

I think you are making a lot of presumptions: to my knowlege there was NO discussion about what would happen to AD  . . . there simply were no discussions. Faculty Senate is not in a position to negotiate with the President regarding who he hires in an executive position. It is in a strong moral position to make arguments about her professional relationship and standing vis a vis her status as a faculty member; her status on Graduate Council, and the correctness of her sitting on P&T decisions. To my knowlege, the President and Angela did not dispute FS contentions on these issues. Ther appointment of AD to the head up the research Foundation in effect, outran events on the ground.

I'm sure you know from your experience at Clemson that to try to get a Faculty Senate to act with any great power or urgency in June is extremely difficult. Couple that with the huge confusion of a late election of new senators to seats and the restructuring of nine colleges into five would tell you that we had our hands full just keeping the Senate focused on its own business.

Perhaps from a distance these events look a lot clearer to you than to us. For us the clarity you see is obscured by the daily fog and mist of the collective activity of the university -- and there is much in the activity that, banal as it is, is distracting but necessary to continue to focus on in order to continue iour primary work of teaching and researching.

You shouldn't take it for granted that a "compromise" was engineered or even discussed. There wasn't really anything to discuss.  I think most of us were skeptical but agreed that, in the absence of other evidence we were obligated to at accept AD's version of her actions at face value. We aren't conducting an inquisition here. I could say that many of our best researchers were gone . . . I could also say that there was little energy left to mount a battle over the summer when most of the senate was gone and those of us still in town had other work to do. I could also say that Angie's appointment, coupled with a sense that our continuing to push at her would be viewed by the community not as honorable academics attempting to get at the truth, but as vengeful agents cotinuing to "harrass" a woman who had managed to gain a certain level of public sympathy. It is far more complicated than you suggest, and while I value your advice I do resent the tone of judgement in this most recent series of posts.

I'm not saying that there might not have been more to do . . . or that we might have let up too fast and too easily. But to look for some sort of devious reason in which members of the Senate would "compromise" -- as though we copuld so easily and trade good realtionships with the university for the persecution and assassination of two of our colleagues is pretty harsh. If you need any reason at all it is fatigue, grief, a certain level of cynicism that had set in, the disorganization of the end of the semester, and the shock as we began to realize  that we were not going to be able to push Shelby out. I'm not proud of that, but that is a long way from "assuming" that a deal was cut. It wasn't.

Thanks Reporter for giving a more informed answer than my own. I think Jim Crockett's comment probably sums up the breadth of understanding on the part of the senators. Some continue to believe that AD knowingly shaded her resume to appear to be something she wasn't . . . others believe it was carelessness or lack of experience in the academic world. I don't think we really had the tools to prove the truth and proof is what was needed in this instance.

The shocking thing that still has never been resolved is AD's coming out swinging in January of last year instead of simply saying what she told the Senate committee. Had she kept her cool, we might ot have lost two of our best and brightest faculty members. The ADP does not seem to have taken this overreaction into account in making its decision . . . To this day, the exile of F&G from campus is still treated by the HA as an almost ordinary event, anbout on the par of removing a hangnail. People outside the academy are simply incapable of understanding how such losses rip huge holes in the fabric of our intellectual life . . . That life is what makes university culture distinctive, so such a catastrophe is no small matter to faculty or students.

Stephen Judd and Reporter,

I appreciate both of your clarifications of what happened at that Faculty Senate meeting back in June.  I can see now that the June 19 Hattiesburg American article, which was all I had to go on, gave a misleading impression.

I am sorry about the judgmental tone, but I have seen a Faculty Senate President at Clemson get repeatedly snookered by upper administrators whose assurances he was foolish enough to believe, and another Faculty Senate President who became an unpaid agent of the Provost (who later duly rewarded this person with an office in the Provost's suite).  And that's at a university where the administration isn't nearly so overbearing or ruthless as has recently been the case at USM.

Faculty Senates are easily outmaneuvered during the summer--this is one reason why upper administrators often reserve their biggest power plays and most controversial moves for that time of year.  They also tend to be poor at public relations, and are easily buffaloed by Presidential spokesflacks and other paid mouthpieces of the administration.  Hence the worry about appearing to be vengeful toward Angie Dvorak... as though Angie Dvorak and her supporters ever worried about her appearing to be vengeful.

I guess the Faculty Senate simply failed to understand how much bargaining power it actually had.  It seems clear in retrospect that the IHL Board had ordered Thames to get rid of Angie Dvorak as a condition of its continuing sponsorship, but in June those who believed that this was the case were in no position to prove it. 

Again, my apologies for treading on any toes here.  I wanted to see the issues raised by Crockett and Beckett's comments aired out on this board before I went and shot my mouth off over at Liberty and Power.  Particularly after my colleague Charles Nuckolls blamed Thames' continued hold on power on Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer, because they accepted the settlement imposed by the Board.

There are no easy choices for USM Faculty Senators now.   Continuing to negotiate with Thames will not induce him to give up anything he really cares about, and will enable him to keep tearing down USM with a minimum of unfavorable publicity.   But operating in prolonged crisis mode is going to be too much for most faculty members; some administrators appear to be able to function while devoting nearly all their time to political maneuvering, but no faculty member can do that.  Nothing will get better so long as Thames remains in power, yet only a massive political campaign, rallying multiple constituencies in the southern third of Misssissippi against Thames and his major supporters on the Board, offers any reasonable prospect of getting him ousted.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"I think Jim Crockett's comment probably sums up the breadth of understanding on the part of the senators. Some continue to believe that AD knowingly shaded her resume to appear to be something she wasn't . . . others believe it was carelessness or lack of experience in the academic world. I don't think we really had the tools to prove the truth and proof is what was needed in this instance. The shocking thing that still has never been resolved is AD's coming out swinging in January of last year instead of simply saying what she told the Senate committee. Had she kept her cool, we might not have lost two of our best and brightest faculty members. "

---

Stephen,

I think the second part of your statement fully resolves the question left hanging in the first.

Angie Dvorak not only came out swinging in January, many believe that she was involved in spying on Gary Stringer well before that. 

In any event, a person who had nothing to hide wouldn't behave as she did.  She didn't think that her explanations would be persuasive, so she tried to bully her way out of the situation.  I've seen the precise pattern before, with the professor who lied on his vita.  Perhaps some of your colleagues on the Faculty Senate haven't had to deal with people like that.  They have been fortunate, but they have been left ill-prepared to respond to some really dangerous individuals.

The consequences of her actions were, of course, dire.  (The professor in question never had nearly the position power of an Angie Dvorak, yet he was responsible for driving several good, productive colleagues into retirement or out of academia.) 

And, no, the mass media haven't a clue what firing senior professors for criticizing the administration will do to a university.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: educator
"FOR ALL THOSE NEW TO THE BOARD:
The above is an intelligent discussion where the parties involved worked towards a better understanding about events that happened in the dead of the summer. The above is intellectual observations and reobservations of what occured. "

---

Note also that actual evidence was provided for the observations, not just fictional spin. Perhaps Profs. Judd and Campbell could offer a workshop for Lisa Mader, Thames, Dvorak and their ilk.