Independent: Board divided - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Independent: Board divided

Date: Dec 19, 2004

If the Independen'ts analysis is on-target, it means that Patterson has not yet broken with Klumb and faction.

Any chance that he will?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Robert Campbell asks a GREAT question? Does anybody know?

Date: Dec 20, 2004

An out-of-state university Dean ? For all we know, Bob Pittman could have interviewed his dog for that information.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. Do Little
"An out-of-state university Dean ? For all we know, Bob Pittman could have interviewed his dog for that information."

I can understand why you might ask such a thing, but I can tell you that Bob Pittman would never do such a thing. He is not that kind of person. What you sees is what you gets. No spin, no nonsense with him.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"If the Independen'ts analysis is on-target, it means that Patterson has not yet broken with Klumb and faction. Robert Campbell"

Robert:

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Patterson is associated with "Klumb and faction" from the information presented? Did I miss something? The Independent article identifies Patterson as a potential "leadership voice," and implies (to me at least) that he's not yet asserted himself. I know nothing of the gentleman, but wouldn't assume that his silence necessarily suggests an alliance with Klumb, or support of Thames. It may instead suggest that he's gathering ammunition, or quietly building his own alliance. If Patterson is one of the four IHL members who're prepared to "challenge Thames' leadership" he'd be well advised to line up three additional votes before making his move, wouldn't he?

AE

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. Do Little
"An out-of-state university Dean ? For all we know, Bob Pittman could have interviewed his dog for that information."

Bob Pittman has a talking dog? Then why the heck is he running a newspaper for a living?

Let's see, the source (either Dean or dog) said that USM is "aware that the issue is serious" and "SACS believes the problem is serious and the University should consider this a strong warning." Do you have information to the contrary, Dr. Do Little? Seems like it is pretty consistent with what is posted on the home page of the USM web site.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

i am skeptical of the story for two reasons. first, deans at other universities don't want to pile on. unless, of course, they've got a beef with USM. second, the dean does not make a distinction in his/her comments between probation and probation with good cause. as i've noted before, that is an important difference, one that SACS officials have pointed to. if his dean does indeed participate in site visits, i would expect him/her to know some basic distinctions in the SACS process.

i've read other stories where i think this board is the sole source for their stories.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i've read other stories where i think this board is the sole source for their stories."

Where else on this campus could one get the truth if not on this board? From the dome? From USM PR? From faculty members who are under duress and intimidation? I'd say that a responsible reported would be glued to this board.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

If this Board is the source, I've never seen the number 4 as the number favorable for ousting the jerk. We see Klumb's name and that Robin person from Laurel, but who else really?

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: yet . . . yet
"If this Board is the source, I've never seen the number 4 as the number favorable for ousting the jerk. We see Klumb's name and that Robin person from Laurel, but who else really?"

Then the story in the Independent must have come from a source other than this message board.

I disagree with stinky cheese man's assessment that deans don't want to pile it on. Perhaps most of them don't want to engage in piling it on, but there is no reason to believe that some of them are no different from members of other professions.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

i agree--if i were a reporter i'd use this board as a source for stories. wouldn't rely on what i read here as "fact." as a good reporter, i'd get additional sources.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

i will remain skeptical of the independent. they have to give me more. i don't buy this dean understands SACS at all. we don't even know if the dean is at a university SACS accredits. the story posted here is ambiguous with respect to that fact.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

sorry--the person says he is a SACS committee member. still don't buy he has a sense of SACS.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

AE,

I don't have a complete rundown of the Klumb faction's membership. Robin Robinson, who made gratuitous demands for post-tenure review upon joining the Board (and claimed that every faculty member who wrote her supported Thames) is obviously in it. West, if I recall his name right, was quoted before the Board meeting claiming that probation was no big deal--also a Klumb supporter...

The reason I think Patterson is still supporting Klumb is the following. If Patterson didn't come out against Thames when

It was obvious that Thames neglected accreditation for 2 and 1/2 years
Thames was caught in a series of lies about getting no warnings from SACS and/or maybe there were warnings but Hudson, Bond, whoever failed to tell him about them and/or maybe Fleming
screwed everything up with SACS before Thames took over
Thames was shown to have withheld information from the Board about accreditation problems
and
Thames was chewed out during the Board meeting by Crofts, Newton, and McGee

... what would induce him to come out against Thames and oppose Klumb?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"AE, I don't have a complete rundown of the Klumb faction's membership. Robin Robinson, who made gratuitous demands for post-tenure review upon joining the Board (and claimed that every faculty member who wrote her supported Thames) is obviously in it. West, if I recall his name right, was quoted before the Board meeting claiming that probation was no big deal--also a Klumb supporter... The reason I think Patterson is still supporting Klumb is the following. If Patterson didn't come out against Thames when It was obvious that Thames neglected accreditation for 2 and 1/2 years Thames was caught in a series of lies about getting no warnings from SACS and/or maybe there were warnings but Hudson, Bond, whoever failed to tell him about them and/or maybe Fleming screwed everything up with SACS before Thames took over Thames was shown to have withheld information from the Board about accreditation problems and Thames was chewed out during the Board meeting by Crofts, Newton, and McGee ... what would induce him to come out against Thames and oppose Klumb? Robert Campbell"

Robert, I usually agree with what you say. However you speculate more than I'm comfortable with sometimes. Your argument above amounts to a "lack of evidence to the contrary" argument". I'm sure you realize it is and argument from incredulity, much like “SACS has no evidence that USM isn’t “Word-Class” so it still is”.

Sorry.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Time to break down these IHL Board members and figure out who's with or against USM as a highly regarded pubic university.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Otherside,

Of course my comments about the leanings of various people on the Board are speculative--I know nothing about these people, except through their comments in the media.

The hard fact, however, is that Thames has gotten away--repeatedly--with the kinds of inept or boneheaded or perverse actions that normally induce governing boards to fire presidents. (Not to be confused with the kinds of inept or boneheaded or perverse actions that ought to get a president fired... these form a much broader category.) To take the most recent example, getting a university put on probation by SACS normally gets its president fired. Getting caught lying to the board or withholding information about problems from the board just compounds the gravity of the offense, from the board's point of view.

So we are dealing with several Board members whose actions appear flagrantly irrational, by the usual standards of trustee behavior.

That's why I take the "conspiracy theory" seriously--though obviously I can't prove that Klumb and at least 6 other Board members want to diminish USM, and I do wonder whether there is some other way to make sense of their actions.

And no one's provided evidence that Thames has bought off Board members--the way that Peter Diamandapoulos, the crooked president who came close to destroying Adelphi University, allegedly did. Nor is there plausible evidence that Thames is blackmailing a bunch of them.

I do find it reasonable to ask: if Patterson is going to exercise leadership, exactly what is he waiting for?

Unless, of course, Patterson wants to break down USM--in which case he is aligned with Klumb now, and will keep aligning with Klumb in the future.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Otherside, Of course my comments about the leanings of various people on the Board are speculative--I know nothing about these people, except through their comments in the media. The hard fact, however, is that Thames has gotten away--repeatedly--with the kinds of inept or boneheaded or perverse actions that normally induce governing boards to fire presidents. (Not to be confused with the kinds of inept or boneheaded or perverse actions that ought to get a president fired... these form a much broader category.) To take the most recent example, getting a university put on probation by SACS normally gets its president fired. Getting caught lying to the board or withholding information about problems from the board just compounds the gravity of the offense, from the board's point of view. So we are dealing with several Board members whose actions appear flagrantly irrational, by the usual standards of trustee behavior. That's why I take the "conspiracy theory" seriously--though obviously I can't prove that Klumb and at least 6 other Board members want to diminish USM, and I do wonder whether there is some other way to make sense of their actions. And no one's provided evidence that Thames has bought off Board members--the way that Peter Diamandapoulos, the crooked president who came close to destroying Adelphi University, allegedly did. Nor is there plausible evidence that Thames is blackmailing a bunch of them. I do find it reasonable to ask: if Patterson is going to exercise leadership, exactly what is he waiting for? Unless, of course, Patterson wants to break down USM--in which case he is aligned with Klumb now, and will keep aligning with Klumb in the future. Robert Campbell"

Robert, your analyses are highly valued here. We're all speculating about some things. No reason why you shouldn't engage in some informed speculation also.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

I subscribe to the "tacit conspiracy" theory. I doubt that six or more of the IHL board members have an overt agreement to diminish the status of USM. If anything, I think that a majority of the board have ALWAYS thought of USM as an "uppity" inferior and their decisions have been made based on that assumption, sort of like the way teacher expectations influence the performance of students.

Informed by that opinion, they made one really bad -- but overtly defensible -- decision: to hire Shelby Thames. I think that some of them, at least, recognized the potential for discord and welcomed the opportunity to let USM "implode." ( I am quite surprised at how often I hear that word used in discussion of the current situation.) Those board members see this all as just what happens when inferiors try to associate with their betters.

From the perspective of "outsiders" (with whom I talk regularly) this is still viewed as "the problem at USM" -- kinda like the "troubles" in Ireland, too complex to blame on one side or the other. I hate it, but no one -- outside of this close circle of friends -- lays the blame on the IHL Board, where it rightfully belongs.

Ultimately, the blame goes back to the process that makes board membership a political plum. That is the reason we get such boneheads as Roy Klumb overseeing institutions about which he is obviously just "belignorant." (He doesn't know, knows he doesn't know, and doesn't care that he doesn't know; but he's still willing to fight about it.) Given that of most of the board members are total rookies when they come to the position, they defer to the hierarchy. Thus newcomers such as Patterson have little influence at first, but may eventually recognize the tacit conspiracy as they observe it. I hope so anyway.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

I understand your position Robert. Thanks for the explanation. My speculation is that the Board would love to get rid of Thames, but haven't yet figured an exit strategy. It is difficult for them to "save face" because they hired SFTover the advice of the faculty. They defended him, believed faculty were wrong and yet the faculty predictions keep coming true. At ordinary universities you have a competent provost to step in during the change. But Thames sandbagged his position and the board is stuck. Even this board can’t come up with a good exit strategy for the board to save face. As much as I disagree with Klumb, I need be be realistic and expect a strategy that will save face for him. The only way I can see out is if SFT becomes “ill”. His “illness” can even be blamed on the faculty. “The faculty are the blame” will save face Klumb.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"I understand your position Robert. Thanks for the explanation. My speculation is that the Board would love to get rid of Thames, but haven't yet figured an exit strategy. It is difficult for them to "save face" because they hired SFTover the advice of the faculty. They defended him, believed faculty were wrong and yet the faculty predictions keep coming true. At ordinary universities you have a competent provost to step in during the change. But Thames sandbagged his position and the board is stuck. Even this board can’t come up with a good exit strategy for the board to save face. As much as I disagree with Klumb, I need be be realistic and expect a strategy that will save face for him. The only way I can see out is if SFT becomes “ill”. His “illness” can even be blamed on the faculty. “The faculty are the blame” will save face Klumb. "

The IHL could, of course, tell the truth. When a football coach is fired the reason is hidden: the firing occurs because of their Win-Loss record. When I look at USM's academic record for the past two years I see no wins. I see only strikes, fouls, and a couple of curve balls. Here it is the last of the 9th. We've no runs. One of our players has been placed on probation; another has been shipped to a 4th tier minor ballclub. One more strike and we'll be out. The home office need not cover up our failure.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Batboy
"The IHL could, of course, tell the truth. When a football coach is fired the reason is hidden: the firing occurs because of their Win-Loss record. When I look at USM's academic record for the past two years I see no wins. I see only strikes, fouls, and a couple of curve balls. Here it is the last of the 9th. We've no runs. One of our players has been placed on probation; another has been shipped to a 4th tier minor ballclub. One more strike and we'll be out. The home office need not cover up our failure."

When a football coach is fired the reason is not hidden. Please note this correction to my second sentence.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

Otherside,

Right after the Board imposed the settlement in late April I heard the rumor that Thames would "resign" because of "ill health." But they didn't make him do it then, and one wonders what will induce them to make him leave now.

Could it be that there is no facesaving way out for Klumb, and that the best that can be hoped is that the other 6 (plus?) who voted with him will now make him their scapegoat? My understanding is that Nicholson put Thames in, but Klumb had become Thames' number one public advocate before Thames tried to fire FG and GS... and he has certainly made the loudest noises ever since. The rest had their reasons for aligning with Klumb, but Klumb has made far more remarks that will be difficult to retract than any of the others.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"I subscribe to the "tacit conspiracy" theory. I doubt that six or more of the IHL board members have an overt agreement to diminish the status of USM. If anything, I think that a majority of the board have ALWAYS thought of USM as an "uppity" inferior and their decisions have been made based on that assumption, sort of like the way teacher expectations influence the performance of students."

ram,

I like your tacit conspiracy theory.

Among other things, an explicit conspiracy would (usually) be better organized.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 21, 2004

Bob Pitman is a joke of a writer. For the most part his information comes from one man, and that man is Bobby Chain. Not only does Chain dump info into Pitmans little brain, he also dumps plenty of money into that piece of crap newspaper. I have never seen anyone who can say the stuff that Bob Pitman can says and get away with it. It's like journalistic integrity doesn't matter to him because he's going to say what ever he wants without proof. I'll do a jig and throw a party the day the Independent shuts its doors.

This article is just another blaring example of how he manufactures the information he needs. Its a well known fact that he's burnt most of his bridges at the University as well as the City of Hattiesburg. If it weren't for his little puppets working at the school and Bobby Chain, he's never get any information. I'd be careful what you say around the Athletic Media Relations department and the Alumni Association, as if those areas are of any importance, because certain individuals report back to their former boss on a regular basis.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

So tell us...how do you really feel about Bob Pittman?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

Well, Dr. Do Little, if you really must know...I don't like the entire Pitman Family. They are nothing but cheats and crooks of you ask me. This is my opinion and I know there are some out there that will disagree with me.

Bob Pitman lied to me once, and that lie nearly cost me my lively hood. Don't ever believe anything this man says nor anyone associated with his family. They are all in it together.

That Rag of a newspaper is nothing but an outlet for his voice. The writers he has there now are nothing more than puppets for his amusement. He claims to be a man of God, but work for him a week and you'll know that's untrue. His daughter-in-law is lazy and cares nothing for the newspaper she runs. It's a disgrace to his son's memory if you ask me.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Independent Sucks
"Bob Pitman is a joke of a writer. For the most part his information comes from one man, and that man is Bobby Chain. Not only does Chain dump info into Pitmans little brain, he also dumps plenty of money into that piece of crap newspaper. I have never seen anyone who can say the stuff that Bob Pitman can says and get away with it. It's like journalistic integrity doesn't matter to him because he's going to say what ever he wants without proof. I'll do a jig and throw a party the day the Independent shuts its doors. This article is just another blaring example of how he manufactures the information he needs. Its a well known fact that he's burnt most of his bridges at the University as well as the City of Hattiesburg. If it weren't for his little puppets working at the school and Bobby Chain, he's never get any information. I'd be careful what you say around the Athletic Media Relations department and the Alumni Association, as if those areas are of any importance, because certain individuals report back to their former boss on a regular basis. "

Seeker? Is that you?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Deja Vu
"Seeker? Is that you?"

It does sound a bit like the lad, doesn't it?