quote:

---

Originally posted by: Straight Man
"You say it is a vision problem, Joker?   Just what is it that he can't see? (other posters are also invited to repond)"

---

Straight Man,

He can't see that the "business" USM is in is academics.  He can't see that "shared governance" isn't something some radical professors want, but rather is a management method used in business and industry and relates to what SACS requires.  If SFT had vision he would have had national searches for his top administrators.  If he had vision A. D. wouldn't have been hired because she didn't have the credentials for V.P. Research.  Stringer and Glamser would not have to investigate, if SFT had vision.  If he had vision, he would have been on top of the SACS letters. He would have reported them to the IHL and the University instead occupying his time trying to fire tenure professors.  His provost would have been on top of SACS instead of trying to fine a job while SACS waited overhead.

Handbury would have been unnecessary if he had vision.  Vision would have provided faculty participation, which provides the kind of checks, and balances that avoids publishing erroneous enrollment data to the IHL.   It also avoids ridiculous Drug and Alcohol policies.

But hey, this is getting much too long.  It would be a much shorter post if we just listed what SFT did as president that had vision, understanding and that was beneficial to USM.  (Resigning doesn’t count.)