H.A. Data on Development Accounts - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 26, 2004

RE: RE: H.A. Data on Development Accounts

Date: Dec 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"Perhaps the most stunning part of the story comes in the form of a quote attributed to Mr. Lassen in which he is reported to have said, "I believe in shared governance. This administration believes in shared governance. That's why this council exists." This represents a distortion on several levels, but not the least of them is the reference to the council existing for the purpose of shared governance. The President's Council is not now, and has never been, purposed for any form of university governance. In forming the council, and at a subsequent meeting where the purpose was questioned for clarification, SFT referred to the Council as an "ad-hoc advisory" group and was explicit in saying that it had no role in governance. Therefore, for Mr. Lassen to use the Council as a reflection of the administration's "belief in shared governance" is uninformed on his part, at best, and disingenuous at worst."

David,

It's good to see you contributing to this board again.

I noticed Lassen's remark about governance right away, and took it to be thoroughly disingenuous--therefore perfectly indicative of the way his boss SFT thinks. For Thames, the PC was to have no power to make any decisions. But it was supposed to look like a replacement for the Faculty Senate and various university committees with substantial faculty represenation, all of which Thames wanted to cut out of the loop.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 26, 2004

david--wish you well!

Date: Dec 27, 2004

Will someone from USM please call Mississippi Public Radio this morning and ask them to either delete the "sound bite" report from the HatAm story on Lassen's view of budget or to tell enough of the story so that academic management doesn't get a worse black eye than it already has in the minds of the public...remember that the legislative session is coming on the heels of this "non-story".

Date: Dec 27, 2004

What is the sound bite?

Date: Dec 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" David, It's good to see you contributing to this board again. I noticed Lassen's remark about governance right away, and took it to be thoroughly disingenuous--therefore perfectly indicative of the way his boss SFT thinks. For Thames, the PC was to have no power to make any decisions. But it was supposed to look like a replacement for the Faculty Senate and various university committees with substantial faculty represenation, all of which Thames wanted to cut out of the loop. Robert Campbell "

Robert,

Thanks for the kind words.

Having thought about my earlier statement and your response, I decided to research the minutes of that November meeting further. This would be the meeting of the PC at which Greg Lassen made his monopoly presentation about the consolidation of departmental hold-back monies.

As I stated earlier, Dr. Thames restated the purpose of the PC at a "subsequent meeting" and that he explicitly stated it was a non-governing body. I gave Mr. Lassen credit for possibly being uninformed. Now, here is where it gets good:

It was at the SAME MEETING that Dr. Thames restated the purpose. I quote Dr. Thames from the minutes:

Dr. Thames restated the purpose of the President’s Council as “an ad hoc advisory, non-governing group whose purpose is to assist with and facilitate communication throughout the campus with faculty, staff and students.” [emphasis added]

Therefore, it is readily apparent that Mr. Lassen knew this and clearly sought to mislead in his statement to the press (assuming he is quoted correctly).

Just thought this bore some further clarification.

Thanks, Robert, for all you do to keep this board on topic.

Best,

DJ

Date: Dec 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
" Robert, Thanks for the kind words. Having thought about my earlier statement and your response, I decided to research the minutes of that November meeting further. This would be the meeting of the PC at which Greg Lassen made his monopoly presentation about the consolidation of departmental hold-back monies. As I stated earlier, Dr. Thames restated the purpose of the PC at a "subsequent meeting" and that he explicitly stated it was a non-governing body. I gave Mr. Lassen credit for possibly being uninformed. Now, here is where it gets good: It was at the SAME MEETING that Dr. Thames restated the purpose. I quote Dr. Thames from the minutes: Dr. Thames restated the purpose of the President’s Council as “an ad hoc advisory, non-governing group whose purpose is to assist with and facilitate communication throughout the campus with faculty, staff and students.” [emphasis added] Therefore, it is readily apparent that Mr. Lassen knew this and clearly sought to mislead in his statement to the press (assuming he is quoted correctly). Just thought this bore some further clarification. Thanks, Robert, for all you do to keep this board on topic. Best, DJ "

Good Morning David. I was pleasantly surprised to see all of your recent post while reading this board this morning.

I would be more generous to Greg Lassen. I would say he probably doesn't even know what "shared governance" means. I'm certain his boss doesn't know after two and a half years on the job.

Date: Dec 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ray Folse
" Good Morning David. I was pleasantly surprised to see all of your recent post while reading this board this morning. I would be more generous to Greg Lassen. I would say he probably doesn't even know what "shared governance" means. I'm certain his boss doesn't know after two and a half years on the job. "

Good morning to you, too, Ray. I understand your comments are meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" to a certain extent, but I'm reluctant to let anyone in administration "plead ignorance" about shared governance. In most venues, ignorance is not a valid defense, but this is Mississippi. It is my understanding that "He needed killing" is still a valid defense to murder here, so I have no doubt that ignorance might be considered valid by some juries. LOL

For those who think I'm taking Ray to task, please note the tongue protruding into my left cheek.

Date: Dec 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
" Good morning to you, too, Ray. I understand your comments are meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" to a certain extent, but I'm reluctant to let anyone in administration "plead ignorance" about shared governance. In most venues, ignorance is not a valid defense, but this is Mississippi. It is my understanding that "He needed killing" is still a valid defense to murder here, so I have no doubt that ignorance might be considered valid by some juries. LOL For those who think I'm taking Ray to task, please note the tongue protruding into my left cheek."

Good one David. I forgot about the "needed killing" defense.

Date: Dec 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ray Folse
"Good one David. I forgot about the "needed killing" defense. "

I should probably make it clear that I'm not suggesting defenses for murder on this board, Ray. The Department of Homeland Security might think I'm engaging in terrorist remarks. Also, no telling what Ms. Mader and the USM Department of Truth Prevention might make of it.