Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Hobson's Choice
Post Info TOPIC: Hobson's Choice
BR 549

Date:
Hobson's Choice
Permalink Closed


On the surface it appears that the USM faculty is faced with a Hobson's choice. The IHL is also faced with a Hobson's choice. The faculty has no visible way out of their dilemma. Theirs seems to be a Lose-Lose proposition regardless of the route they take. The IHL, on the other hand, has a way out of theirs.


It may be possible to salvage USM's accreditation if the USM faculty engages in lots of time-consuming hard work by lending their academic and organizational experise. If the attempt is successful, however, the IHL is likely to give us "4 more years" of the same old same old - in which case the faculty would be as miserable and USM would likely be as academically misfit during an extended administrative four-year contract period as they are at the present time. About he only thing that would be changed is USM's accreditation status. - from probationary to full accreditation - and we would all be a little older.  Further, salaries are determined largely by research, economic development and, to a less extent, teaching. Service is generally given the back of the hand when personnel matters of tenure, promotion, and salary are concerned (except for some administrators.) The faculty is not stupid. It knows this. Faculty  members who devote more time to service (e.g., devoting substantial time working on accreditation affairs) must necessarily reduce their primary teaching and research efforts upon which important personnel decisions are based. Given the current environment at USM, there is probably very little incentive, among the most capable faculty at least, to ignore research and teaching in lieu of the necessary accreditation service activity. So, on two counts, this a no-win proposition for the faculty. On the other hand, if the faculty depends on those "upstairs" with less academic/administrative expertise) to do the accreditation job, USM is much less likely to get off of probation and jobs are likely to vanish. So, on two counts, this dilema presents a no-win proposition for the faculty. Taken together, the faculty is clearly in a lose-lose situation whichever way you cut it. A Hobson's choice if there ever was one.


The IHL also faces a Hobson's choice of sorts, but one of their available choices is much more attractive than the other.  If the IHL takes no action and supports the status quo (as it seems to be doing now),  USM will probably lose accreditation. If  USM loses its accreditation the IHL specifically, and Mississippi in general, would be the laughing stock of the academic world (e.g., butt of many jokes,  Seymour-type cartoons spread throughout the media).  The shame would rub off on the other public universities including Ole Miss and Mississipi State. The IHL would lose face within Mississippi and also across the nation (Noel Polk's letter must be taken seriously).  Everyone would be on the IHL's back - not on the backs of the USM faculty. I doubt that the IHL would like that. The IHL, not the USM faculty, would be blamed.  "Doing nothing" would be a no-win situation for the IHL. The IHL's alternative choice  (taking swift and appropriate action) could lead to reversal of our probationary status when the reckoning day comes. All the IHL would lose by taking swift and appropriate action is that they would have to eat a very small crow (I believe it was foot soldier who said "I told you so."). A Hobson's Choice of sorts, but one where one of the alternatives is a little more attractive than the other.


 Only the IHL can solve the two Hobson Choices. The IHL has the key to the door leading out of these two dilemmas.  Specifically, the IHL should declare their intentions now. If the IHL made took swift and appropriate action now and ensured the faculty that it would not have to endure four more extended contract years, I believe that the faculty would pitch in and would do what is necessary to help ensure that USM's probationary status is lifted at the earliest possible time. This provides a  strong incentive for the IHL to make their decision now.  It's up to the IHL. The ball is in their court. They can resolve two dilemmas which were not of the faculty's creation. In order for this to happen, however, the IHL must take action now. - not in another year when SACS will make their decision. That would be too late. The faculty needs to know now what  the future holds in that respect. If the USM faculty knew now that they would not have to endure "four more contractual years" of what they have endured for the past couple of years, I believe it  would enthusiastically work with the current administration toward SACS accreditation. If the IHL announced their decision now there would be a tremendous and positive motivational effect on the faculty. If the IHL waits a year to announce its decision about the ensuing four contract years, however, it could very likely be too late. The faculty can have its cake and eat it too - if the IHL acts now by announcing its intentions. The IHL can also have its cake and eat it too - by announcing their intentions now. The IHL is in the driver's seat. To them I say: Ladies and Gentlemen: START YOUR ENGINES!


 


 


 



__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

Hmmm. There would be some precedent, too.  Didn't the IHL Board offer Horace Fleming a one year contract -- essentially a termination contract?

__________________
Ghost of Christmas past

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Hmmm. There would be some precedent, too.  Didn't the IHL Board offer Horace Fleming a one year contract -- essentially a termination contract? "
ram asked a timely question.

__________________
Jr Samples

Date:
Permalink Closed

BR 549 has a very important point in the history and future of SFT and USM.  The future is NOW. The IHL can take two approaches:


 


1)      If the IHL does not fire SFT, the faculty will not be motivated to work hard to pull-off accreditation in 12 months.  Why? Because the faculty will know that even if they do work hard to do it (and sacrifice time, research and personal goals), SFT will be the real winner in the eyes of IHL and the press, and faculty will feel “used” in the process after SFT once again has disparaging and spiteful remarks about the faculty that did all the work and just got USM off SACS probation. Bottom line:  no one likes to feel “used.”  The trade-off: keep SFT, but lose faculty support for a long time.


 


2)      If the IHL fires SFT and appoints a real leader that can motivate faculty to move forward in the next 12 months and reclaim their university, you may see cooperation across campus like you have never seen before.  This way without SFT, there is hope for the future that USM be restored to the potential it has.  USM faculty can use the SACS criteria to re-build, un-do SFT musings,and restore the future for USM.  Bottom line:  everyone likes to contribute to a cause greater than their own self interest, especially when you know you won’t be doing it to save someone’s rear end and knowing someone like SFT will not get the credit.  The trade-off:  lose SFT, but gain faculty support for a long time into the future.


 


For the future of USM, the IHL must get rid of Thames before January 05.



__________________
We have a winner!

Date:
Permalink Closed

Everybody might win this way if it worked. The IHL would save face. The faculty would work at an accredited university under normal governance procedures. The president would have successfully carried the institution into accredited status during his administration. Win, win, win.

__________________
Amy Young

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Jr Samples
"BR 549 has a very important point in the history and future of SFT and USM.  The future is NOW. The IHL can take two approaches:   1)      If the IHL does not fire SFT, the faculty will not be motivated to work hard to pull-off accreditation in 12 months.  Why? Because the faculty will know that even if they do work hard to do it (and sacrifice time, research and personal goals), SFT will be the real winner in the eyes of IHL and the press, and faculty will feel “used” in the process after SFT once again has disparaging and spiteful remarks about the faculty that did all the work and just got USM off SACS probation. Bottom line:  no one likes to feel “used.”  The trade-off: keep SFT, but lose faculty support for a long time.   2)      If the IHL fires SFT and appoints a real leader that can motivate faculty to move forward in the next 12 months and reclaim their university, you may see cooperation across campus like you have never seen before.  This way without SFT, there is hope for the future that USM be restored to the potential it has.  USM faculty can use the SACS criteria to re-build, un-do SFT musings,and restore the future for USM.  Bottom line:  everyone likes to contribute to a cause greater than their own self interest, especially when you know you won’t be doing it to save someone’s rear end and knowing someone like SFT will not get the credit.  The trade-off:  lose SFT, but gain faculty support for a long time into the future.   For the future of USM, the IHL must get rid of Thames before January 05."

Given the recent dissembling by Shelby Thames et al. on SACS accreditation, things could be worse.  He is already not being open and honest about what is going on to us and to the press, why would we have confidence that he wouldn't be an obstacle?


Moreover, just dodging criticism (like that directed at Faculty Senate President David Beckett) is an obstacle.  The question that still needs to be answered is can we (faculty) even do this while Thames is at the helm?


Give us a new leader and I believe that new leader will garner the full attention and lots of energy of faculty to successfully resolve this matter.



__________________
Second Fiddle

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
" Given the recent dissembling by Shelby Thames et al. on SACS accreditation, things could be worse.  He is already not being open and honest about what is going on to us and to the press, why would we have confidence that he wouldn't be an obstacle? Moreover, just dodging criticism (like that directed at Faculty Senate President David Beckett) is an obstacle.  The question that still needs to be answered is can we (faculty) even do this while Thames is at the helm? Give us a new leader and I believe that new leader will garner the full attention and lots of energy of faculty to successfully resolve this matter."
Amy, if the IHL will not do what you suggest wouldn't the BR 549 be the next best thing?

__________________
BR 549

Date:
Permalink Closed

The BR 549 plan said nothing about any one being terminated now. Under the BR 549 plan the current contract would run its course. No premature termination. I doubt that the IHL would take such an action now. What was suggested by the BR 540 plan is that if the IHL  announced their intentions for the ensuing four years now, and by doing so ensured the faculty that they will not have to endure any more of this treatment in the future, the faculty would enthusiastically work hard to help ensure a positive accreditation outcome - all within the current, albeit temporary, administrative structure.



__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Didn't the IHL Board offer Horace Fleming a one year contract -- essentially a termination contract? "

We can hope that SFT would follow Fleming's lead and fall on his sword, too. 


Naw, Fleming had more class. 


He was also marketable in other venues.


Nevermind.



__________________
Second Fiddle

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Hmmm. There would be some precedent, too.  Didn't the IHL Board offer Horace Fleming a one year contract -- essentially a termination contract? "
I think ram understands BR 549.

__________________
I wish I could retire...

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
We can hope that SFT would follow Fleming's lead and fall on his sword, too. 
Naw, Fleming had more class.  He was also marketable in other venues. Nevermind."


Thames doesn't have to worry about being marketable. He retire right now & draw a pension equal to better than 80% of the average of his highest four, which we can peg conservatively at $200K. So just a little quick math tells me, he would be getting paid at least $160K plus a compounding 3% COLA annually to sit his butt at the house. And at his age, in just a few more months, there would be no social security penalty, so he could add that on top of it and get back into the official money pipeline for Mississippi Polymer Institute as a consultant.

I think he's a nut not to quit.


__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: I wish I could retire...
" I think he's a nut not to quit. "

You've convinced me. Let's hope Shelby and the IHL Board are thinking like you do.


As far as understanding BR 549, I'm just hearing a proposed compromise: The IHL Board announces that SFT gets to stay at the helm for one more year in order to get the ship back afloat (and during which a search is undertaken to find his replacement?)  He can even claim that it was his idea.  Bad health and all that.


The year will be awful for the faculty, but endurable. (It will be awful otherwise, anyway.) SFT can leave having saved (a) face and (b) USM from lost accreditation.


I wish they'd just fire him and get it over with.  Hire a high powered consultant instead. But if wishes were horses, us beggars would ride.


And a certain polymer scientist would have to step carefully.


 



__________________
Straight Man

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" As far as understanding BR 549, I'm just hearing a proposed compromise...."
BR 549 does look like a compromise. But dyspareunia is better than no pareunia at all.


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Hobson's Choice
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard