Tonight's Faculty Senate Meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 15, 2004

Tonight's Faculty Senate Meeting

Date: Dec 15, 2004

I was hoping a faculty senator could report to you and I watched for postings as I fixed a sandwich. Nobody's offered, so I will present a very brief run-down.

1. Dr.Beckett opened with a statement (version of his letter)
2. Dr. Exline fussed at Dr. Beckett because she thought she should have been welcomed at the meeting, but said she and Dave were OK.
3. Dr. Exline briefly spoke about when she heard about probation, etc.
4.Questions for Dr. Exline, some of which she didn't or couldn't answer. She explained the "process" for getting our new strategic plan - which are those 5 goals. She had great difficulty answering the question, "Why wasn't SACS accreditation a priority of the administration?"
5. After she left, there was talk of a no confidence vote but it would, by FS rules, have to be tabled until the next meeting. Clearly (at least to me), the sentiment was there. Therefore, the FS exec committee will be working on a statement (even as early as 10:00 tomorrow morning) expressing concern, and more about the SACS process and our future.

I do not believe our Faculty Senate will let us down! In them I have confidence. There are some new heroes emerging there.

Dr. Exline assured us that she and Thames would be at the IHL tomorrow and then would be flying to Atlanta to meet with Gerald Lord tomorrow afternoon.

(tired) Amy Young

Date: Dec 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curmudgeon
"Would someone be so kind as to give us a report on the faculty senate meeting?"

The Faculty Senate meeting started about 5:10 pm and featured Dr. Joan Exline making a short statement about the SACS situation followed by numerous questions from the Senate. That part of the meeting ended about 7 pm. The Senate then discussed the information or lack of information until about 8:10 pm.

Sorry I don’t have much to report except the Senate was NOT relieved by what they heard. The lack of information is a major concern. You will probably read about the meeting in the H.A. because Janet Braswel was present. More information may be available later because tomorrow Exline and Thames will meet the IHL Board and then go to Georgia to meet with SACS to try to find out what must be done to get probation removed. Senators feel only paperwork is needed true, but does the data exists to put in the paperwork. Faculty Senate will make a statement soon about their concerns.

Although a resolution of “no confidence” was discussed, just about everyone wants to learn the facts before voting. Many senators were not present because of exams etc. Senators from the coast couldn’t attend and there was barely a quorum. The vote will be considered in January. The SACS letter to USM is due on 1/12/05 and the Senate meets on 1/14/05. It was suggested that a motion be made at that time, discussed and a special called meeting be made to vote if necessary depending on the picture from SACS.

If time permits tomorrow I may look through my notes and post some of the many questions and answers from Exline. It was hard recording the fast paced questions and answers.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"Thames would be at the IHL tomorrow and then would be flying to Atlanta to meet with Gerald Lord tomorrow afternoon."

My Mama used to say that once the cows are gone, it's too late to close the barn doors.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

An interesting point came out at the Senate's meeting. If SFT asked a staff member how was SACS going, the staff member could answer "everything’s fine" if they thought he was talking about the up coming 2006 review. However, I they thought he meant the 1995 SACS review, they would have known that SFT knew that situation. In 2002, when USM was notified they weren't in compliance, SFT personally spoke to the SACS officer about it.

I don't believe the media is aware of this twist. USM doesn't make it clear when something is announced about SACS. The media thinks we are responding to probation from the 1995 review, while in reality USM has no clue about that and is just preparing for 2006.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Newgirl,

The SACS process is an ongoing thing. In an administration that isn't 100% dysfunctional, "How are we doing with SACS?" would be understood to refer to both.

Under Thames, on the other hand...

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"An interesting point came out at the Senate's meeting. If SFT asked a staff member how was SACS going, the staff member could answer "everything’s fine" if they thought he was talking about the up coming 2006 review. However, I they thought he meant the 1995 SACS review, they would have known that SFT knew that situation. In 2002, when USM was notified they weren't in compliance, SFT personally spoke to the SACS officer about it. I don't believe the media is aware of this twist. USM doesn't make it clear when something is announced about SACS. The media thinks we are responding to probation from the 1995 review, while in reality USM has no clue about that and is just preparing for 2006. "

Did anyone consider that Thames is just lying, and that he never asked any staff member about how SACS was going because he just doesn't care? I believe that if this assertion were true, that "staff member" would've been fired by now. SFT didn't care one whit about SACS until it became another PR mess for him to clean up.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Did anyone consider that Thames is just lying, and that he never asked any staff member about how SACS was going because he just doesn't care? I believe that if this assertion were true, that "staff member" would've been fired by now. SFT didn't care one whit about SACS until it became another PR mess for him to clean up."

May I suggest rewording this?

another Shelby-caused mess that others will need to clean up

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Did anyone consider that Thames is just lying, and that he never asked any staff member about how SACS was going because he just doesn't care? I believe that if this assertion were true, that "staff member" would've been fired by now. SFT didn't care one whit about SACS until it became another PR mess for him to clean up."

Methinks it is worse than Shelby not caring - he doesn't even know, until now, that he needs to care about SACS.

Time to throw the non-academics/foxes out of the administration/henhouse!

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Angeline and Truth4,

I think you're both right.

Thames doesn't care about SACS accreditation because he is too self-infatuated to recognize that anyone besides himself and his sponsors on the Board could have any say in the future of USM.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" SFT didn't care one whit about SACS until it became another PR mess for him to clean up."

Exactly. Had he been paying attention to the SACS process, he would have known that four years of records were missing and he would have had someone looking for or attempting to retrieve the information. Maybe we would have more success in our endeavors if we added "and Athletics" to everything (ala the administration's "Economic Development," i.e., SACS and Athletics review.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Did anyone consider that Thames is just lying, and that he never asked any staff member about how SACS was going because he just doesn't care? I believe that if this assertion were true, that "staff member" would've been fired by now. SFT didn't care one whit about SACS until it became another PR mess for him to clean up."

According to recent off-the-record comments by a former, now transplanted USM administrator, Thames' pleas of ignorance re the SACS mess are just "more of his bull$**t"..."The SOB knew for the past two years that there were SACS reporting problems and he did absolutely nothing. He was told, on several occasions, by more than one of us. He just couldn't grasp it. If it's not about money and economic development, it isn't important. The reason no one at the university will say anything to the contrary now is fear of termination."

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Informer
" The reason no one at the university will say anything to the contrary now is fear of termination." "

Does Shelboo think that he is going to scare everyone into working with him to get USM off of probation? What an absolute travesty...

Date: Dec 16, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Tonight's Faculty Senate Meeti

Date: Dec 16, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Tonight's Faculty Senate Meeting

Date: Dec 16, 2004

A side note from the Faculty Senate meeting last night:

In explaining why he was reluctant to invite Dr. Exline to the FS meeting the week before, Dr. Beckett explained that the “timeline” given out that afternoon was suppose to be confidential and could not be discussed. But then the administration released it to the press. Exline explained that the Hattiesburg American (Kevin Walters??) contacted the administration and informed them he knew the details of the timeline. He wasn’t given the handout, but someone took notes and he knew. That being the case the administration released the “confidential” timeline to the H.A.

Way to go H.A. (Kelvin Walters?)!! And Klumb complained today that the press wouldn’t even know about the probation if the media weren’t after Thames. If they are making Klum angry, they must be doing the right ting.