No Confidence - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 21, 2005

No Confidence

Date: Jan 21, 2005

Magnolia,

There really isn't any media coverage right now. And we all know that there are plenty of stories, for newspapers willing to commit their resources to a little investigative reporting--and willing to brave the negative reactions from SFT's political backers.

A no-confidence vote is something they would have to cover.

But should it come from the Faculty Senate or the general faculty?

From some of the things that Stephen Judd has been saying lately, I wonder whether the current edition of the USM Faculty Senate is ready for that kind of gut check.

Robert Cmapbell

Date: Jan 21, 2005

fingers outracing brain again... but the point should be clear.

RC

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Magnolia, There really isn't any media coverage right now. And we all know that there are plenty of stories, for newspapers willing to commit their resources to a little investigative reporting--and willing to brave the negative reactions from SFT's political backers. A no-confidence vote is something they would have to cover. But should it come from the Faculty Senate or the general faculty? From some of the things that Stephen Judd has been saying lately, I wonder whether the current edition of the USM Faculty Senate is ready for that kind of gut check. Robert Cmapbell "

Today I received a survey form the AAUP-USM. It is a survey to evaluate the administrations at the universiaties in MS. After the results are made public the FS will have a very good idea of the faculty mood for either a FS vote or general faculty vote of No Cofidence.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
But should it come from the Faculty Senate or the general faculty?

I would settle for either. I think the votes are there either way.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"fingers outracing brain again... but the point should be clear. RC"

I think the Senate is ahead of the faculty to some degree -- faculty senators will have to check with their constituencies, after all. I was not referring to a lack of courage but rather to a new consensus that has to be forged with new personalities in in office.

My previous remarks have to do with the fact that a "no confidence" is really a major psychological hurdle if you have never cast one . . . . last Spring there ws a congruence of anger and a horrific event . . . . this Spring there is a great deal going on, but it is not easy to get everyone to see the whole picture. And after the shock of a Senate and faculty vote that (although it had an effect) did not topple the leadership, there has been a great deal of questioning not merely in terms of should we vote . . . how many votes can we get . . . but on the strategic level as well.

One thing I do have some hope in -- just about everyone has good reason to be angry right now. The GC appears to be in an uproar -- the library and abortive attempt to create the ExMBA is only the tip of the iceberg apprently. The CoB would appear similarly angry for a whole number of things ranging from the Economic Development issue to the ExMBA and etc. Nursing of course . . . . and CoAL -- almost no one is happy or loyal there. Science and Tech I think are split -- but some programs have genuine reasons to be disturbed. Programs are understaffed, ovecrowded . . . . and then there is SACs. Disillusionment and disappointment at the probation -- and a sense of confusion and anger at the upcoming accreditation visit which we are really ill prepared for. I believe that the disenchantment this year is both deeper and broader. But for those reasons there is not yet a huge momentum behind concerted action, although there is a lot of fuel for the tinderbox.

Keep a weather eye out RC -- no predictions but given the inevitability of this administration continuing to overreach itself, I think the lighting of the match is just a matter of time.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
just about everyone has good reason to be angry right now. The GC appears to be in an uproar ..... I think the lighting of the match is just a matter of time. "

I'm on campus every day and I haven't heard anyone there say that Thames should stay or that Thames is doing a good job or anything positive about this administration. Even administrators speak negatively of this administration when they think they can do so "safely."

Neither do I hear anything positive about him or his administration in the community--not from my business contacts, not from my church, not from my friends, not at Walmart, and not from my hairdresser.

The time is NOW.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" I think the Senate is ahead of the faculty to some degree -- faculty senators will have to check with their constituencies, after all. I was not referring to a lack of courage but rather to a new consensus that has to be forged with new personalities in in office. My previous remarks have to do with the fact that a "no confidence" is really a major psychological hurdle if you have never cast one . . . . last Spring there ws a congruence of anger and a horrific event . . . . this Spring there is a great deal going on, but it is not easy to get everyone to see the whole picture. And after the shock of a Senate and faculty vote that (although it had an effect) did not topple the leadership, there has been a great deal of questioning not merely in terms of should we vote . . . how many votes can we get . . . but on the strategic level as well. One thing I do have some hope in -- just about everyone has good reason to be angry right now. The GC appears to be in an uproar -- the library and abortive attempt to create the ExMBA is only the tip of the iceberg apprently. The CoB would appear similarly angry for a whole number of things ranging from the Economic Development issue to the ExMBA and etc. Nursing of course . . . . and CoAL -- almost no one is happy or loyal there. Science and Tech I think are split -- but some programs have genuine reasons to be disturbed. Programs are understaffed, ovecrowded . . . . and then there is SACs. Disillusionment and disappointment at the probation -- and a sense of confusion and anger at the upcoming accreditation visit which we are really ill prepared for. I believe that the disenchantment this year is both deeper and broader. But for those reasons there is not yet a huge momentum behind concerted action, although there is a lot of fuel for the tinderbox. Keep a weather eye out RC -- no predictions but given the inevitability of this administration continuing to overreach itself, I think the lighting of the match is just a matter of time. "

Stephen,

What I'm hearing is there is no confidence in SFT (that isn't the problem), but people question the timing and the negative PR that it will generate against faculty. Some compare it to a mutiny (No Confidence vote) when the captain (and press) have just asked the crew for help to save the ship (SACS). (The public wants the ship saved.) This argument is causing some in CoST to question the timing. This is especially important now because of the complete lack of information on the issues making it out through the press to the public. The vote will seem to them as a "bolt out of the blue". To the public, things seems quiet at USM. Now if the Gulf Coast issues get published then the picture changes.

I have heard that there are so many issues going on right now that senators are having a hard time even summarizing and reporting to constituents. FS meeting have run 3.5 hours causing the press to leave. The PC meeting (2 hours) has so many SFT's people on the agenda that faculty issues come up too late so that the press is swamped.

Just reporting some of the problems to the board.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: The Time is Now
" I'm on campus every day and I haven't heard anyone there say that Thames should stay or that Thames is doing a good job or anything positive about this administration. Even administrators speak negatively of this administration when they think they can do so "safely." Neither do I hear anything positive about him or his administration in the community--not from my business contacts, not from my church, not from my friends, not at Walmart, and not from my hairdresser. The time is NOW. "

On the other hand, the current faculty in my department -- close to fifty percent have been here less than two years. In the campus at large, we have over 200 new faculty members since 2002-03. Over a hundred in this past year. Not everyone has had time to absorb this what has been happening. Those of us who have been here longer have more perspecitive -- and have already been through one vote.

Not having a positive sense of the administration is not the same as being angry enough to vote "No Confidence." -- at least among the general faculty.

The Senate is another thing. But new Senators feel particularly sensitive to the issue of how they represent their constituency -- and it takes time to get a handle on that in some programs.

I'd also advise that senior faculty -- many of whom voted last spring -- need to take time to educate their new faculty to the issues and the concerns. This is the best way to build consensus. In fact, my suggestion would be that a move to vote no confidence can come from the ground up as well as from the Senate down. If colleges demanded that their senators put a vote forward -- it would happen for sure.

The Senate has been accused by the administration of not represntating the faculty, and of not communicating to the faculty what is going on in the senate. I think there is probably some truth in this -- what happens in senate is often complicated and proceedural (and, contrary to what sometimes apears to be the case, very unexciting). It is often difficult and time consuming to explain to faculty, many of whom would just as soon their senators take care of business. It is usually when things go badly that senators are called to account by those they represent -- at least this is my experience. However, I believe that on the largest issues of most clear and immediate concern to the faculty, most senators have been pretty good about communicating the issues. That is my perception -- I certainly could be wrong.

Don't know where this left me -- except that it is in the power of the general faculty to put pressure on your senator either way -- to press for a vote or to refrain, to vote "no confidence" if such a vote comes into being, or "confidence."

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
" Stephen, What I'm hearing is there is no confidence in SFT (that isn't the problem), but people question the timing and the negative PR that it will generate against faculty. Some compare it to a mutiny (No Confidence vote) when the captain (and press) have just asked the crew for help to save the ship (SACS). (The public wants the ship saved.) This argument is causing some in CoST to question the timing. This is especially important now because of the complete lack of information on the issues making it out through the press to the public. The vote will seem to them as a "bolt out of the blue". To the public, things seems quiet at USM. Now if the Gulf Coast issues get published then the picture changes. I have heard that there are so many issues going on right now that senators are having a hard time even summarizing and reporting to constituents. FS meeting have run 3.5 hours causing the press to leave. The PC meeting (2 hours) has so many SFT's people on the agenda that faculty issues come up too late so that the press is swamped. Just reporting some of the problems to the board. "

Yes -- this is exactly what I mean by strategic considerations. A "no Confidence" vote is not a gimme -- and there are many ways it could backfire. So the debate is not as simple as comfidence/no confidence, but also will sucha vote do more harm than good . . . or is there a time in which such a vote will have a maximum impact and how do we know when that time is?

Every time a vote is taken -- the individual impact of the vote is probably somewhat lessened. Although one can make the case than an accrewl of such votes has its own impact. And there are other considerations that perhaps it might be best not to speculate about on a board that is open to anyone who wishes to lurk on it.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

Stephen,

Isn't it interesting that the facsen's no confidence vote last year was 40-1, coupled with facultywide vote of no confidence of something like 94%, yet Thames survived. While after getting SACS probation, Auburn's facsen votes something like 28-23 no confidence (barely majority) and the Prez there get canned.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Reporter
" people question the timing and the negative PR that it will generate against faculty. Some compare it to a mutiny (No Confidence vote) when the captain (and press) have just asked the crew for help to save the ship (SACS).

The problem is that there will never be a good time. The SACS probation issues will be with us until December (at least). Then we have the scheduled 2006 SACS review. It certainly won't be a good time when we are preparing for that, especially when many on the faculty think we're going to be in trouble with SACS AGAIN.

And by 2006, we may have a reinvigorated SFT, the Energizer Bunny who takes a licking but keeps on ticking, with a brand spanking new 4 year contract.

Yes, there's a risk, but I think the alternative is worse.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

Carthago delenda est.

At the next meeting, and every meeting after that, until he's gone.

Date: Jan 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
""

Yes EC -- our Board seems particularly entrenched in its support of this President.

Magnolia: Actually, I am not completely in agreement with you. I was one who pushed hard for a vote of no confidence back in the days of Don Cabana. In retrospect, I believe it would have been a weak vote and would have been used by the President to solidify support against the faculty. My feelings about the timing of a vote might be similar to yours, but I have colleagues who have equally compelling reasons why we should wait to see what develops. I could actually see that possbility -- another cataclysmic misake for instance, as happened with F&G.A vote that backfires is worse than no vote at all -- because once it backfires we have lost one of our major critical weapons. I think the vote of no confidence actually has quite a bit of power as a threat -- once it is taken it has a short half life. Sort of like when the dam breaks -- if the water doesn't knock the hourses down in the first rush, they probably will survive asa the wave gets weaker.

On the other hand -- I DO believe time is running out. The administration has definitely been bloodied -- you don't lose as many key people as they just lost and not have it hurt. But we have also lost a lot of strong, active people who have been deep in the trenches and have long memories. We are increasingly populated by new faculty members with lower rank and a lot to lose and do not have the history we have. We have to educate them and soon, about what faces them in the future if they wish to stay here for any length of time.

Spring is critical. If this administration gets renewed for another three or four years -- look for both a bloodletting and for an exodus of many more. That is not to be discouraging -- it is to say that we are probably approaching the next "point of no return."

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"Yes EC -- our Board seems particularly entrenched in its support of this President."

Stephen, you have been particularly eloquent this evening. There's just one thing I want to turn on its ear & that's the above.

The board may be less entrenched in its support of SFT than it is in its determination to destroy the University of Southern Mississippi. Thames is "only a pawn in their game." I am convinced that he gives the board (unwittingly, perhaps) a mechanism to accomplish what it failed to do in the late '80s: reorganize the universities in Mississippi. This time instead of open debate & public hearings, they're sneaking it in the back door.

I don't trust any of those jokers. I used to thing that Virginia Newton was a USM backer. Now I think she's a "front," a foil to make it look like most of the board are reasonable & concerned in comparison with Klumb & Ross. But she's a lot of talk & no action. The only action coming out of this board is consistently pro-Thames & anti-USM.

Virginia, if you read this (which I seriously doubt), know that one person is onto the little gig that Kirk Fordice set you up to do. (And if that's not the case, DO SOMETHING!)

1,000 no confidence votes would mean nothing to this board.

All that said, I am still confident that Thames is running out of time. The board has no control over some things...

Date: Jan 22, 2005

this is my own pet peeve about the FS--my senator (in my department) for the first time in 18 months finally sent the department information about the FS and what was being discuss. It was clippings from the FS list-serv. There was nothing more informative than what I read on this message board--in fact, some of it appeared to be taken from this board. It's a sad day (in a way not) when this board is more informative than my faculty senator.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

I think the problem with the last vote of no confidence was that it looked too reactionary. The public saw that the faculty was angry because 2 of their friends got fired, and voted before any of the facts were in. It was a he said, he said situation and at that time, I think the public was will to give SFT the benefit of the doubt first.

Now, if you did a no confidence vote at the end of the semester that was after a long review of the current administration and you reported that after X, Y, Z (and I would leave out FG and GS, you lost that one to the public, instead focus on SACS, tier drop, etc.) there is no choice but to recommend the removal of SFT for the academic survival of the university. I think the public would understand this.

As for IHL, well, I don't know what to do. Ever since Flemming (and probably before) they seem to have the opinion that the USM faculty are a bunch of whiners. I think the only way around the board is to get USM alums to start calling up their local legislators, and telling them they are pulling their support unless they start putting pressure on the college board.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"this is my own pet peeve about the FS--my senator (in my department) for the first time in 18 months finally sent the department information about the FS and what was being discuss. It was clippings from the FS list-serv. There was nothing more informative than what I read on this message board--in fact, some of it appeared to be taken from this board. It's a sad day (in a way not) when this board is more informative than my faculty senator. "

This is indeed a problem SCM. As I said above "I have heard that there are so many issues going on right now that senators are having a hard time even summarizing and reporting to constituents."

Just to explain the problems on the Coast, with all of the connected issues, is no easy task. Imagine a senator hearing about this during a 3.5-hour meeting and trying to take notes, and then reading a very hot listserv with new facts revealed almost every hour. Remember the official minutes won't be approved until next regular meeting so being accurate in reporting to constituents is also a problem.

No one said democracy is efficient. It just beats dictatorships.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

i know group process and consensus building takes time. but 18 months!? i think my senator sometimes feels no sense of obligation to a constituency.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: asdf
"...Now, if you did a no confidence vote at the end of the semester that was after a long review of the current administration and you reported that after X, Y, Z (and I would leave out FG and GS, you lost that one to the public, instead focus on SACS, tier drop, etc.) there is no choice but to recommend the removal of SFT for the academic survival of the university...."

It is widely expected that Thames will come up for review and contract renewal by the board in April. Whatever the decision, a faculty vote in May would be superfluous.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM patriot

It is widely expected that Thames will come up for review and contract renewal by the board in April. Whatever the decision, a faculty vote in May would be superfluous.

This is why it's very important that the vote take place NOW or at least in the next 2 months. Folks, I never believed it could happen, but we may have this guy for another 5 1/2 years.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

I, too support a vote of no confidence (no surprise there). I want to point out (again) that this is important because the continued lack of shared governance, especially regarding the curriculum, will keep us in jeopardy with SACS. The Principles of Accreditation for SACS clearly state:

3.4.12 The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty.

The recent move to drastically alter the coast library, for example, was done without properly vetting this with the faculty. Naturally, such a move would affect curriculum and planning for future classes and programs. Such a plan should have first been carefully considered within each of the colleges (various college curriculum committees), and then be presented to the academic council and the graduate council, who could then make recommendations to the provost.

The lack of faculty input and total disregard for the protocol for new or modified programs is also illustrated by the recent restructuring of the Political Science Department with the inclusion of the IDV PhD program. This included a major modification to the College of Business and Economic Development (but without following the rules is now the College of Business).

The possible eMBA program is another example.

This administration continues to endanger our accreditation. I knew when I wrote that the faculty would work desperately to get us off probation and into compliance at the same time that the administration puts us at risk. I believe that it is possible that we could risk accreditation AND the faculty will take the brunt of the blame. But the biggest injury would be to our students.

No Confidence

Amy Young

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
".......... the continued lack of shared governance, especially regarding the curriculum, will keep us in jeopardy with SACS .......... This administration continues to endanger our accreditation .......... I knew when I wrote that the faculty would work desperately to get us off probation and into compliance "

Amy - there is one matter that leaves me bewildered. The faculty, through its representative groups such as the Faculty Senate, AAUP, etc., has made it clear to the administration on a number of occasions that continued lack of shared governance in matters such as curriculum, for instance, will keep us in jeapordy with SACS. That advice was provided to the administration prior to our being placed on probation. We are now on probation, and the administration is evidently seeking faculty assistance in reversing that action. If the faculty gives their advice a second time (which will, no doubt, include academic values such as shared governance in curriculum matters), is there any reason to believe that the administration will accept the faculty advice this time? As far as I can determine, it has not accepted such faculty advice thusfar. The faculty has already spoken on these matters on numerous occasions. Is it that the administration wants to hear it again before taking approrpriate action, or is the administration listening for a different answer? Does the administration expect to get a different answer this time?

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
I knew when I wrote that the faculty would work desperately to get us off probation and into compliance at the same time that the administration puts us at risk.

These SACS committees were formed shortly after the December SACS meeting and the announcement that we were on probation. Wouldn't you expect that these committees would be called into meetings and be put to work by mid-December, at least? Wouldn't you expect that there would have been meetings or at the very least, assignments, over the holiday break. Don't you feel a sense of urgency about this?

I'm hearing that some of these committees haven't really gotten to work yet. Although there have been organizational meetings, there hasn't really been any work done yet, at least nothing that's very visible. It looks like, despite all the talk about cooperation and pulling together to get this done, a very small group of administrators are going to try to pull it off by themselves.

This is one reason why I think we need a no confidence vote right away.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

stephen,

I appreciate your comments about the Faculty Senate, as always.

I agree with some other posters that votes of no confidence in Thames (from the Senate and from the faculty as a whole) need to be taken early in the spring semester, well before the IHL Board reviews his performance in April.

That means a lot of organizing and careful gauging of support need to be done right away. As several people have pointed out, a vote of no confidence is not effective unless the no confidence motion carries by an overwhelming majority. (My frank assessment of that 28-23 vote at Auburn: by the time it was taken, the skids had already been greased under the president. It was an afterthought.)

It also means a lot of work precisely identifying the worst damage that Thames and his underlings have done and putting it in order, in terms of severity. I wouldn't hark on the firings of FG and GS right now, either. And not just because SACS accreditation has hurt Thames the most and made the greatest impact on the press and on the public. It's also because I am reasonably sure that Thames has been warned not to indulge in any more arbitrary firings of tenured faculty. If he tries again, it will happen when he is on the ropes, and so panicked that he no longer cares how the Board reacts.

Three things that I think need particular attention over the next couple of months:

--Thames' key remaining underlings need their feet held to the fire. Notice how Thames and what's left of his PR machine have kept Ken Malone away from the press. They definitely do not want Malone answering questions at a PC meeting, or any other even that might get media coverage. Put pressure on Malone until he either has to talk to the press, or is seen as hiding under his desk. Since Malone is in the thick of several of the worst things the Thames administration is presently doing--in fact, he is a walking threat to the continued accreditation of USM--there should be plenty of ways to up the heat on him.

A vote of no confidence in Malone specifically might be worth organizing. (I'm sorry, but the notion that Senates--or general faculty meetings--can entertain motions of no confidence only in Presidents or Provosts is a form of superstition that upper administrators will not hesitate to exploit.)

I will drop my past recommendation of a resolution of no confidence in Lisa Mader. Few will miss it, I'm sure . It doesn't matter any more because LSM has almost completely lost her effectiveness. What is helping the Thames regime now is the decision by several media outlets not to cover what is happening at USM. Assorted movers and shakers may have convinced editorial boards to look the other way--or they may simply perceive that the fix is in, because the Board has not fired Thames under circumstances that pretty much demand it--but I seriously doubt that LSM had anything to do with the current inaction on the part of the Clarion-Ledger and the Hattiesburg American.

If Malone ends up getting thrown to the wolves, perhaps Elliot Pood would be the next designated henchman. But Thames has a lot of his ambitions invested in programs that Malone controls.

--The "conspiracy theory" has to get into the public discourse about USM and the Board. Once the charge that the Board is actively motivated to tear USM down has been leveled, the Board must either answer the charge in public, take concrete actions designed to convince most people that it has USM's best interests at heart, or continue with its demolition job in the face of nonstop public criticism.

I've tried to bring up the conspiracy theory in an op-ed--it was rejected without any acknowledgment of receipt. I've now tried at least mentioning it in two different batches of letters to the editor. Nothing's happened with those, either--I might as well have thrown them away. An op-ed or letter to the editor asking whether the Board's agenda is to tear down USM is going to have to come from someone in Mississippi, not from this "outside agitator" with a series of blog entries blasting the Thames administration.

-- Be prepared to make the case for USM's faculty, constantly and tirelessly. Knowing in advance that Thames supporters will make you out to be lazy whiners (as bad administrators and their friends will always do, when they're behind the 8 ball) should only intensify your resolve.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jan 22, 2005

let me address a couple of issues on this thread:

1. i agree with CoST faculty's assessment of the timing issue. the picture reporter painted of their concern is mine. we need public support of higher education. a vote of no confidence poorly timed could be bad.

2. i understand amy young's accreditation concerns. however, i remember talking with my SACS friend years ago (and he's still there) and "bitching and moaning" about things at USM that were as serious as things here (yeah folks, been bad here before) and he bluntly told me a visiting team may not view things that poorly. they come from different institutions with their own sets of problems and ways of doing things and they may say "it ain't that bad." they're outsiders.

for example, the library on the GC--there is no direct curricular impact as best as i can tell from the threads on this board. As Amy says, "Naturally, such a move would affect curriculum and planning for future classes and programs." what makes it "naturally?" it may have an impact--and i don't doubt that--but demonstrate the curricular impact to outsiders. asserting a curricular impact doesn't prove it. they may perceive it as a space utilization issue.

the movement of the IDV (?) program. i still don't understand where all the body parts went. but if someone can say that it jeopardized COB's accreditation status, and a change had to be made, what will outsiders say?

the possible eMBA. right now, it ain't a reality. i know someone who heard Grimes say that it hasn't been and will have to go through normal channels.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

Robert:

I think your advice here is right on. I believe that you are accurate that there has been some full-court pressure put on the press. I've heard that from sources I know who are close in -- it is fairly easy to see that that pressure is having an effect. With Kevin leaving the HA, the heaviest hitter on the three major papers -- and the only one to really probe with any depth and ask the hard questions -- is gone. Only the Independent occasionally sounds a note of skepticism, but I doubt it has the resources or expertise to make this a story.

I'm in agreement with you about no confidence votes not being limited to Presdents.

In terms of the Board -- this is very tricky. I think a number of folks are testing the conspiracy theory. If there is truly a conspiracy against USM, then no matter what we do to force the Board to act the after affect will not matter. However, if the Board is divided, if its reasons for its poor decision making thus far are more attributable to mismangement, lack of vision, incompetence, etc . . . . then taking it on directly through accusation could leave a disasterous aftermath even if it succeeds in getting Shelby to go. We will need allies on the Board to rebuild the university in the aftermath (assuming they exist -- an admittedly unknown assumption at this time).

I'd rather take your scenerio one step further and go after individual members of the Board and publicize our serious doubts about their competence, motivation, and objectivity. Try to drive a wedge among the Board members. There is no reason, for instance, why there could not be a vote of no confidence against Roy Klumb.

One of our colleagues has a rather lengthly list of events that have happened since the Glamser/Stringer affair which will serve to illustrate that the war on the faculty has not ceased but has simply taken some new and more subversive directions. It is very impressive -- and perhaps even more frightening.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"this is my own pet peeve about the FS--my senator (in my department) for the first time in 18 months finally sent the department information about the FS and what was being discuss. It was clippings from the FS list-serv. There was nothing more informative than what I read on this message board--in fact, some of it appeared to be taken from this board. It's a sad day (in a way not) when this board is more informative than my faculty senator. "

SCM,

While I would certainly encourage senators to be as communicative as possible with those they represent, let me also point out that senators are elected by the faculty in their colleges, not in their departments (indeed not all departments have a senator). Faculty are invited to contact their senators (the membership list is at http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/members/2005.htm with concerns and opinions, especially before the upcoming special meeting of the Senate.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Bill Powell
" SCM, While I would certainly encourage senators to be as communicative as possible with those they represent, let me also point out that senators are elected by the faculty in their colleges, not in their departments (indeed not all departments have a senator). Faculty are invited to contact their senators (the membership list is at http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/members/2005.htm with concerns and opinions, especially before the upcoming special meeting of the Senate."

I second that -- thanks BP.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

bill--why should i have to contact others when i have a FS member in my dept? a radical proposal--why not have the senate become a true senate, based on the federal government. each dept. gets a rep. one complaint i have heard over the years is that some people who couldn't get elected within their dept. can get elected at the college level.