Come to think of it, wasn't the official letter from SACS due earlier this week?  Has anybody seen it?  Is it available online?

Wouldn't you think if the administration (and the Hattiesburg American) want the faculty to fix this mess, they'd be moving heaven and earth to let the faculty know specifics of the task ahead? 

OTOH, if compliance will not be terribly difficult -- that is, "just some paperwork to be filed" -- I would have thought the administration would be publicizing the fact that everything has been under control all along.

just imagine serving in a DEPARTMENT run by the prez's daughter. Lord almighty, not letting her chair a SACS committee was one of the more intelligent moves I've seen them make.

 

I wish someone from off campus would send a letter to editor on this one. That Dana and her daughter both serve on the committee is a farce. To me, this is either a way to control the committee or it at the very least shows a woeful blindness to the importance of showing that every process related to assessment should not be tainted by the appearance of impropriety.

A letter would alert the public to the issues. It would put the issue on the table for legitimate discussion., As of now, any faculty member who raises the issue will 1) be assused by the mader machine of vindictiveness and personal attack and 2) will be taking on the head man and the family, and thus potentially red-lining any fiuture here.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Could we make this up?
"I heard that Miss Dana pitched a fit when she wasn't allowed to chair one of the SACS committees. 
How would you feel about a key SACS committee chaired by the President's daughter?"

---

Anybody who would actually "pitch a fit" to chair a SACS committee, even if it's a normal self study at a well-run institution, is nuts. Bull-goose looney. In-sane.
at USM & I'll leave you to wonder what the 1st most thankless job might be.

I can't believe that DT's daughter was keeping the minutes for the meeting. That's the icing on the flippin' cake!

Thenextstateover just admonished me that I had misposted, so let me post my post on the other thread here:

The Sign of the Thames is indeed a strange time. To quote Leon Russell, we have become "strangers in a strange land". It could be so much better. I attended school with Dana, watch out for that one. Quick trigger temper and less than thoughtful (dumba$$) responses when that happens. Why would she call a faculty meeting on the Monday before contractually they were to report back on Thursday? But I drift . . . that question belongs in another post. However, the fact that she felt like she was entitled to do that ought to scare the bejeezus out of most of you faculty members. I remain an interested outsider.

One wonders why the issue of nepotism hasn't had a good deal of discussion.  Specifically, with regard to the lawsuit Hinds Community College Dist v. Muse, Miss 1998.  In that suit, the courts held "Any benefit Hinds Community College received as a result of Vashti's(Muse's wife) employment are irrelevant in light of Dr. Clyde Muse's repeated violations of the conflict of interest laws.  Any benefit Va**** may have bestowed on Hinds Community College likely could have been conferred by any other equally competent and qualified educator whose honors further would have been tainted by the appearance of nepotism and self dealing."

A review of related rulings shows that when the persons are not financially depend upon one another, that the ethics commission has found there to be no violation of nepotism rules.  However, the appearance of nepotism is clearly there in the Thames' situation.