No Confidence - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 22, 2005

RE: No Confidence

Date: Jan 22, 2005

stephen--it isn't you. i agree that small departments would have an issue. but when people from even small departments can politic the college but would not get elected by their departement, what constituency do they represent? i have felt for years that some senators get on the FS and forget they represent a constituency. they merely represent their own views. how do we know when the elections occur who we are voting for? it has become a matter of name recognition. i don't know the majority of those on the faculty senate ballot. does the FS have a means of recalling a senator?

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
" 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. "

Correct, but only after it came to light on the website. Compare what your someone "heard Grimes say" with what Shelby said at the PUC meeting. This got stopped by faculty vigilance, otherwise it was part of the "plan".

AW, thanks for your direct reply. Even if the words weren't exact, the message from Shelby was not:

1) No, there are no plans to renovate the library, or

2) What EMBA program, or

3) This was just an option we considered.

His response was more along the lines of the original report that "that they never intended that the new classrooms should be used only for the ExMBA."

Now, is that newsworthy? No, but it is enough (or should be) to convince the fence-sitters on the faculty, on the IHL, and maybe at SACS that this administration LIES over and over again. Still not convinced? Wait, this segment is not done yet..

Date: Jan 22, 2005

crawfishin'--don't flatter the website. there are some subadministrators that said it has to be done the right way. NEWSFLASH--there are some subadministrators that Grimes listens to and they aren't evil.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"crawfishin'--don't flatter the website. there are some subadministrators that said it has to be done the right way. NEWSFLASH--there are some subadministrators that Grimes listens to and they aren't evil. "

OK, fair enough but I will certainly credit the people on the website - you included. I have heard, however, that Jay listens best to the last person who spoke to him and that any resolve is transitory at best.

On a different note, I heard that at one time Jay was the most outspoken critic on the (what was it council of chairs, maybe?) of the Shelby Thames - what happened?

Date: Jan 22, 2005

crawfishin'--the notion that an an administrator listens to the last person they talked to is nothing new. those in the old CLA knew that--lots of jockeying to get in last to the dean.

i could talk about Grimes but won't. he's in a bad position (my opinion).

Date: Jan 22, 2005

crawfishin'--there are some i hear he trusts no matter first or last. these are the subadminstrators that i believe have their heads on straight and give him good advice (meaning they believe in doing things the right way and following faculty governance on academic matters).

Date: Jan 22, 2005

OK, that's fair too Stinky Cheese Man. I don't even disagree with you because I know of one situation where Jay was very deliberately screwed (see if that gets through the filter). Nonetheless, the point of this exchange is that the administration lied and got caught. At a minimum, Thames, Grimes, and Malone will be complicit in the lie. I haven't included a fourth person because I think he's salvageable under better leadership - we'll see. There is an increasing collection of lies and my personal opinion is that it is the lies that will eventually take them down.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

crawfishin'--i may agree with you on the lying part--don't know. but on some important academic issues Grimes listens to important subadministrators. i also think sometimes he doesn't get a chance to run it by them.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"[...] i have felt for years that some senators get on the FS and forget they represent a constituency. they merely represent their own views.[....] "

Quite possible. On the other hand I "represent" a department of about 40 faculty members. More than once I have taken a couple of hours after a FS meeting to draft a memo describing some issue and specifically soliciting feedback, and have personally delivered a copy into every mailbox. To date no one has so much as acknowledged they received the memo. That being said, I would bet a week's salary that a few of my colleagues would tell you they "no idea who their senator is" or claim that I'm pursuing a personal agenda of some sort.

(In no way am I suggesting the foregoing applies to SCM. I'm suggesting that a lack of response is a disincentive to keep trying.)

Date: Jan 22, 2005

tinctoris--you sound like a good senator. my department has had some and they were put on the dept. meeting agenda. for the last 10 years (my dept. has had a rep for that long) not so.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

Grimes, in his complacency, is as bad as the rest. Even if it somehow bothers him that he's a member of the Problement, he still goes along with what he's told. I realized this when a chair went after a person during her third year review, the chair attacked (completley negating what her own evaluations of the faculty member were in the past couple of years), the dept. went along, the college went along, the Dean went along ,and then it was appealed to the UAC. And they unanimously approved her because they saw that she was stellar (her yearly evaluations clearly showed that - she had one of - if not - THE best teaching evals. in the dept. Her service and publishing record was impeccable. And then came Grimes . .. . who showed that he believes in the concept of nepotism, as blatant and ugly as it is -- and overturned the UAC's decision. It was the summer of 2002 and Guess who had just become the new Prez?

When the reality of it hit the faculty members, many went to the person who was denied and revealed to her that the chair had presented her case that the faculty member just needed a little touching up and would be good to go in the fourth year. Of course, they believed her. The faculty member was not offered a contract and she was out of a job in August. She rebounded rather well and found one in Louisiana in an administrative position with the Baton Rouge Public Schools although she keeps her permanent home in a place she grew to love - Hattiesburg MS. Where are all those facutly members now who realized their complicity in the attempt to ruin someone's professional career. Why, of course, now they are silent. Or they themselves have left.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

emma and others--i'm not trying to defend Grimes (or any other adminstrator) as a saint, nor am i trying to defend particular decisions they make. one thing i've learned over the years of knowing numerous administrators and the daily decisions and issues they have to deal with, is that if you haven't have to do it, walk a mile in their shoes. may sound stupid, but i know a lot of the problems and issues they have to deal with. i had a certain disrespect for administrators before i saw what some have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. try the faculty member who chews out a staff member, making incredibly insensitive comments, (and their criticism was wrong), and a subadministrator has to deal with it. the stories i could tell!

Date: Jan 22, 2005

scm,

Oh I can definitely see your point. However, who said being an administrator would be easy? It's true that the current USM system doesn't allow any administrator, who is out of the Dome loop, the ability to make decisions that put the students first and DomeGang egos last. It happens but that doesnt' make it right. There are a few smashed moral compasses in the hands of several (not all, scm, not all) current administrators.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

I saw a book once that was called Animals Without Backbones, the subtitle added by someone playing a joke was "And Other Stories About University Administrators". Sometimes, you simply have to say "no" and oftentimes you have to pay the price. When you go "back to the faculty" (as administrators inevitably do), you must to be able to live with your colleagues (and yourself). I'm not after Jay so I'll stop. Heard that there was a recent bad decision in COST that lost a (sub)administrator a great deal of credibility while also revealing a certain invertebrate (character) weakness.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Crawfishin'
".... Heard that there was a recent bad decision in COST that lost a (sub)administrator a great deal of credibility while also revealing a certain invertebrate (character) weakness."

Which bad decision? There are more than one. In fact, faculty are learning the hard way as these pile up. Of course these administrators are "just following orders". I don't even think the orders pass through Grimes, but rather come straight from the horse's mouth.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LeavindASAP
"Which bad decision? There are more than one. In fact, faculty are learning the hard way as these pile up. Of course these administrators are "just following orders". I don't even think the orders pass through Grimes, but rather come straight from the horse's mouth."

I was referring to the one about a faculty member who may have been too outspoken in his criticism of economic development.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LeavindASAP
"Which bad decision? "

Does this refer to a certain COST faculty member, very outspoken on the P(u)C, who was forced out of the class he had been teaching by a certain dean who would be provost? I've heard this is not the only such decision by this dean.

Date: Jan 22, 2005

All country boys know that the BS does not end until you get rid of the bulls.

Date: Jan 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"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. "

scm,

1. Direct legislative appropriations to state universities in Mississippi are going to decline, no matter what anyone at USM does. This is a 50-state trend--it's happening all over the country, regardless of how high a priority the legislatures put on higher education in the past.

Do you think that Thames is going to convince the legislature to give the 8 universities in the IHL system more money? Do you think that anyone on the Board is going to accomplish that?

Let's turn the question around: Will knuckling under to the Thames regime increase legislative support for higher education in Mississippi? Will it even slow the rate of decline?

2. SACS does, indeed, overlook matters of considerable local concern. I know enough about my own university's interactions with SACS to be aware of that.

However, a standard issue for accrediting bodies is whether a university's libraries have adequate resources to support existing academic programs--and of course whether they have enough to support new ones.

Since the USM libraries are already in extremely poor shape, the proposed takeover of the 3rd floor of the GC library would matter to SACS.

3. Business faculty have stated several times on this board that the AACSB is concerned about courses with apparent business content being taught outside the College of Business. So moving the International Development program out of the College of Business does not end the threat to its accreditation posed by Ken Malone's finance course, any courses that Hadden may end up teaching, etc.

Meanwhile, do you really believe that Malone is spearheading the drive to document the effectiveness of his own program's offerings for SACS?

As for the Executive MBA: Thames and Malone have backed off for the time being because of the threat of public exposure. You would have to be extremely naive to suppose that the plan is dead. If Thames gets another four years from the Board, it will make its reappearance--most likely he will just announce it to the press one day, as a fait accompli.

It may be that Grimes has occasionally done a decent thing in the past, when his continued occupancy in the office wasn't riding on the decision. But under the present regime, he is a donut hole. He is out of the loop on decisions that provosts are in the loop on everywhere else. He takes orders from Malone, even though Malone is not supposed to be his boss. He has neither the authority nor the guts to make good on his reassurances about "going through channels"--assuming that they are sincere, which I doubt they are.

The question remains--do you actually want 5 1/2 more year of Thames? (Maybe of Thames followed by one of his "mini-me's"?) If you fight Thames, there is still the danger that you will get 5 1/2 more years of him. If you don't fight him, you can be completely sure that you will get 5 1/2 more years of him.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jan 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"stephen--it isn't you. i agree that small departments would have an issue. but when people from even small departments can politic the college but would not get elected by their departement, what constituency do they represent? i have felt for years that some senators get on the FS and forget they represent a constituency. they merely represent their own views. how do we know when the elections occur who we are voting for? it has become a matter of name recognition. i don't know the majority of those on the faculty senate ballot. does the FS have a means of recalling a senator? "

Well, I agree with you that the system has problems -- I think mostly because most faculty members really aren't all the interested in university politicsa in the best of times . . . they'd rather be left alone to do their work. People don;t really campaign for senate too much (at least in my college) so it is usually a matter of who will serve and whose name pops up. I think people who are not really interested generally decline . . . but I am sure some people stay in office on simple intertia. Don't know how to fix it -- it is the usual problem(you can't compel people to be politically engaged --- they tend to become engaged when their interests are threatened).

As for the recall idea -- I don't know. We did a new set of bylaws and constitution to acommodate the reorganization. Some of my faculty colleagues more up on goverance could probably tell you -- I'll jump on the list serv and raise the question.

I still think a better route would be to go to your Senator and convey your unhappiness and give him/her a chance to respond. Of course, you might feel that your senator already has had adequate chance to be more proactive here and you don't see any hope of it getting better. Guess in that case your question really has a practical motive.

Best I can do for now -- it is a cautionary for those of us who take on these positions. I remember back in my first three years here I was almost unaware of the Senate and its business (even though I had been on the Senate at my previous university). Guess it was because I was so busy in my new department and, though things were bumpy, I felt as though my department had a pretty straight line to our Dean and also to the President. I remember at least three occasions when the faculty in the old College of the Arts requested that President Fleming come to speak to us and answer our questions and concerns. To his credit -- he came every time and stayed until the questions were completed. It wasn't always pleasant -- but at least we felt we could express, ask, and get some kind of hearing, and we didn't have to go through intermediaries.

Now of course . . . . a very different thing.

Date: Jan 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" 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. 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. "

Stephen,

Any idea where the "full-court pressure" on the Hat Am has been coming from? (Only if geting more specific won't compromise your sources...) The decision to run Amy Young's op-ed but to keep it out of the electronic edition spoke volumes, and that outburst of gullibility on the editorial page (oh! we never realized that distance education has nothing to do with academic quality! everything's going to be all right!) confirmed it.

My thinking on the conspiracy theory issue was that if it were aired in public, those (if any) on the Board who are not trying to screw USM iin order to aggrandize Ole Miss and Miss State might seek to distance themselves from those who really are. And I agree with Invictus that Roy Klumb is just the "clown prince": he wasn't the one who put Thames in power and his thinking is no different from that of several of Board members who are less inclined to sound off to the press.

All the same, Klumb is the Board President this year, and going after him gives Board members who have begun to regret their support for SFT a strategic exit. It also gives them a scapegoat, which people who are seeking a way out and don't want to assume their share of the responsibility often like to have. Invictus has quoted Lewis Grizzard on wrestling with pigs on more than occasion, but matters have reached a point where press coverage is going to be much harder to get. So if ya gotta wrestle with a pig... A vote of no confidence in Roy Klumb cannot be ignored by the media--it will get everyone's attention. And Klumb will not be able to keep his mouth shut afterwards, which will guarantee further coverage.

So, yes, a vote of no confidence in Klumb would be a good idea. Again, to be effective it has to happen well before the April Board meeting.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jan 23, 2005

robert--i guess one of the problems in posting is that i feel compelled to respond.

1. i'm focusing more on public perception of higher education, not so much legislative support. if people, because of a poorly timed no confidence vote, begin to think faculty are staging a mutiny (and remember, perception can be as, if not more important, than reality), i'm not sure what will happen. i've lived in the burg long enough to know that local community support is iffy. i've found it a strange place to be in for so long.

2. on the GC library all i'm saying is that you can't assert a negative impact on curricular issues, you have to be able to prove it to SACS. many of these team members travel to other universities who have library problems like ours. as i tell my children "sayin' it don't make it so."

3. i have to say that the economic development moves have puzzled me. i keep asking someone i know "now tell me where someone went." about the executive MBA. as long as it goes through the appropriate governance bodies, i'm not sure it's a bad idea. many universities have them (i think Tulane). an insider i know has heard Grimes say it hasn't been approved and will have to go through the appropriate channels. i think some have begun to assume it actually exists when i think the evidence is non-existent.

4. the whole GC campus issue is a long standing one. there's always been a tension between the Hattiesburg campus and the GC campus on its status. some were very happy to leave it as a jr/sr and graduate programs campus. some want it to be more. on this i don't an idea.

Date: Jan 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"Grimes, in his complacency, is as bad as the rest. Even if it somehow bothers him that he's a member of the Problement, he still goes along with what he's told. I realized this when a chair went after a person during her third year review, the chair attacked (completley negating what her own evaluations of the faculty member were in the past couple of years), the dept. went along, the college went along, the Dean went along ,and then it was appealed to the UAC. And they unanimously approved her because they saw that she was stellar (her yearly evaluations clearly showed that - she had one of - if not - THE best teaching evals. in the dept. Her service and publishing record was impeccable. And then came Grimes . .. . who showed that he believes in the concept of nepotism, as blatant and ugly as it is -- and overturned the UAC's decision. It was the summer of 2002 and Guess who had just become the new Prez? When the reality of it hit the faculty members, many went to the person who was denied and revealed to her that the chair had presented her case that the faculty member just needed a little touching up and would be good to go in the fourth year. Of course, they believed her. The faculty member was not offered a contract and she was out of a job in August. She rebounded rather well and found one in Louisiana in an administrative position with the Baton Rouge Public Schools although she keeps her permanent home in a place she grew to love - Hattiesburg MS. Where are all those facutly members now who realized their complicity in the attempt to ruin someone's professional career. Why, of course, now they are silent. Or they themselves have left."

Date: Jan 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"robert--i guess one of the problems in posting is that i feel compelled to respond. 1. i'm focusing more on public perception of higher education, not so much legislative support. if people, because of a poorly timed no confidence vote, begin to think faculty are staging a mutiny (and remember, perception can be as, if not more important, than reality), i'm not sure what will happen. i've lived in the burg long enough to know that local community support is iffy. i've found it a strange place to be in for so long. 2. on the GC library all i'm saying is that you can't assert a negative impact on curricular issues, you have to be able to prove it to SACS. many of these team members travel to other universities who have library problems like ours. as i tell my children "sayin' it don't make it so." 3. i have to say that the economic development moves have puzzled me. i keep asking someone i know "now tell me where someone went." about the executive MBA. as long as it goes through the appropriate governance bodies, i'm not sure it's a bad idea. many universities have them (i think Tulane). an insider i know has heard Grimes say it hasn't been approved and will have to go through the appropriate channels. i think some have begun to assume it actually exists when i think the evidence is non-existent. 4. the whole GC campus issue is a long standing one. there's always been a tension between the Hattiesburg campus and the GC campus on its status. some were very happy to leave it as a jr/sr and graduate programs campus. some want it to be more. on this i don't an idea. "

scm,

Any vote of no confidence by a university's faculty will be seen as "mutinous" by some folks out there. If that's the primary worry, it would rule out nearly any vote of no confidence at nearly any time.

As for the timing... Thames is primarily responsible for the accreditation crisis, and he and Malone keep taking actions to make it worse. The resolution of no confidence can make it clear that there is a choice between getting rid of Thames and further sharp decline at USM. Do you really think that keeping Thames in power is necessary for the continued health of USM?

As for the GC library, any plan that would require taking out most of the book stacks will have an impact recognizable by site visitors for SACS.

There's nothing wrong with an Executive MBA program. A number of other institutions do them well. But we all know that Thames and Malone won't be imitating those models. Just as they are not interested in emulating Economic Development programs that have some substance.

The Executive MBA program does not exist yet. But if the plans hadn't been challenged in public, it would already. What makes you think that Thames and Malone have any intention of going through channels on this program? (Particulary when they know that the Graduate Council and the Academic Council are full of really pi$$ed off faculty.) They are simply going to proclaim the EMBA to be in operation, when they think the time is ripe, and in a mere formality the Board will sign off on it. And the EMBA won't be in any AACSB accredited College of Business, either.

If anything is clear about Thames and his henchpeople by now, it's that they feel no obligation to play by the rules. They don't even think they have to play by SACS' rules--which is why USM is on probation.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jan 24, 2005

Let's not forget that Gregg Lassen was not simply affiliated with Phoenix University, he was the Associate Dean of Business for one of the Phoenix satellite locations. David Butler (assistant professor, director of the IDV program and, at one time if not now dissertation advisor to Lassen), who served on the CBED Dean search committee in Spring, 2003 pushed Lassen as a candidate for the Business School Dean's position. After not getting serious consideration for the dean's job, either Angie Dvorak or Tim Hudson recruited Lassen from Utah to start an on-line program here (I think Angie recruited him although I think he reported to Hudson.) He might have seen the writing on the wall that getting caught between the two of them was a bad deal and he jumped at the opportunity to move to the CFO position (although that may have been the plan all along - Linda McFall would probably know). There is a plan that has been being implemented since Shelby took office that has not only been developed without input from the faculty, it has never been made transparent to the faculty. Gregg Lassen is probably the smartest guy in the dome and decent besides but don't look for him to support the business school - it's not his mission nor his expertise. He is clearly aligned with economic development as an alternative to the business school.