I think it's actually a good idea. The previous No Confidence vote needs to be hammered home otherwise.  What the faculty thinks is imperative in this situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Reporter
"I don't think it would be beneficial at this time and a bad PR move.  (Although everyone I know including me would vote no confidence.)  When the ship is sinking everyone needs to bail.  We can take care of the captain later, but only if we keep it afloat.  If we don’t keep it afloat, everyone goes down with the captain."

---

In the Auburn case, removing the captain saved the ship.

I am afraid any vote now would be compared to the one taken during the G/S situation. This vote would have to be at least as overwhelming, if not more, or it might be spun as proof things are improving. Is there a feeling that the vote would be just as overwhelming this time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tiger
"I am afraid any vote now would be compared to the one taken during the G/S situation. This vote would have to be at least as overwhelming, if not more, or it might be spun as proof things are improving. Is there a feeling that the vote would be just as overwhelming this time?"

---

Consider this, little Tiger. When a similar no confidence vote was taken at Auburn University, their president was out of there in less than a month - he was history! Zapped. Gone. Yet, the Auburn faculty vote favored no confidence by a count of only 37-30. That's all it took: 37-30. Most self respective university presidents would voluntarily resign if the faculty support was no greater than that. Auburn's governing board knew full well that a leader with that pitiful level of faculty support would be unable to lead. In order to lead. a president must have followers. Even national presidential elections yield votes closer than the Auburn count. USM's misguided attempt to fire those two tenured professors is probably unprecented in the history of American universities. That botched debacle will undoubtedly go down as one of the most egregious events in the annals of higher education. It will, no doubt, be well documented as a textbook case in the literature of higher education administration. The USM faculty were stunned when the principles academic freedom due process were violated. The faculty acted immediately and forcefully with a no confidence vote which no self respecting governing board would ignore (except our governing board) - and with a no confidence level which was substantially greater than the Auburn vote which resulted in the demise of their president. Going from 3rd tier to 4th tier in the US News ratings is embarrasing; and being put on probation by SACS is serious. Itt would be surprising, however, if those two events, by themselves, would be suffient to spark a no confidence vote of the magnitude level sparked by the S/F affair. Nonetheless, a new vote should be more than sufficient to give the IHL pause to think and then take action such as was taken by the Auburn governing board. I'd say go with it! The sooner the better. The boat's gonna sink if nothing is done. Otherwise, the captain and the boat will sink together.

lord of the jungle--agree with all of your details about USM. you leave out one point--why didn't our IHL do anything?

Another vote might not be a good idea right now. Last spring's vote remains. It had no effect whatsoever. Faculty could be considered obstructionist. Furthermore, it would give Shelby a foil to distract attention from the real problems (look faculty don't want to help, blah, blah, blah). I think Shelby's incompetence is so great that he'll hang himself on this one. Nothing he's done so far gives one confidence that he can get us out of this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: qwerty
" Faculty could be considered obstructionist.

---

Not 'could be' considered obstructionist, qwerty, the faculty 'are' considered obstructionist. But why should they be muzzled?  Not speaking out now, in unison, is the equivalent of being muzzled. In the unlikely case that a vote turned out to be unconvincing, the faculty might as well either hang it up or shut it up, in which case the happy ones should resign themselves to living in this oppressive environment for the duration while their marketable colleagues are moving to greener pastures one by one.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Dr. Do Little
"Shelby will survive and the university will thrive."

---

And while there will be no causal relationship between these two events, it will be the cause for much post hoc, ergo propter hocking.