Only news I've heard is that the Hattiesburg American is reporting the Faculty Senate was meeting behind closed doors to discuss the possibility of a no-confidence vote against SFT.

From the HA on-line edition: "The motion to discuss the issue was made by longtime history professor Bill Scarborough. It came after the senate had met for two hours to discuss other issues, including the university being put on probation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the post-tenure review policy."   

Dear Faculty Senate:

You all are into shared governance.  It's clear Thames is not buying into you.  You have to cut him loose.

Very truly yours,

Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Reporter
"Dr. Joan Exline addressed the special FS meeting concerning SACS and the Strategic Plan.  She said that from the feedback she expects the "goals" in the plan will be changed.  A committee is collecting the feedback and input to revise the draft document.  Faculty informed her that the "goals" were stated by SFT at a FS meeting in September 2002 a year before the faculty focus groups provided faculty input in August 2003.  Thus the "goals" could not have come from faculty input from the focus groups.  This was a surprise to her."

---

She also indicated that this time there would be a real, participative planning process.  That said volumes about what the earlier process was. 

Dear Larry,

I'm not too sure I'd go that far.... I read Dr. Thames' response as somewhat positive--I mean, at least he still uses words and phrases when addressing us, and that's a clear sign that he considers us capable of understanding human communication, so he must think we're human. I am not so sure that we should rush into the whole "you aren't into us thing," because even though he may have, on occasion, not given us the respect we deserve, and even though he and his people have done us wrong in the past, that doesn't mean he (they) will do it in the future. I just don't know where to go from here. I mean, I feel like we're at a stalemate, here. I just don't think I'm ready to pull out the "you're not into us" card yet.

ATBC

Yet? Yet?  What, YET?  You're afraid about "rush"ing into anything? Where have you been since June 2002??? You are a troll ATBC, and YOU have been outted.  You really think that you are "at a stalemate".  I hope to God that you aren't a faculty member because that statement comes from ignorance.

NO QUARTER>

You really think he's going to change?  If so, you are an idot and a troll.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Curmudgeon
" Within higher education, votes of no confidence are an extremely serious matter, almost analogous to the impeachment of a U.S. President. Thus, they are not to be taken lightly, and they are extremely rare. Given the collective nature of a university, they mean that the normal day to day operations of a university are no longer possible. The most recent nearby examples occurred at Auburn and Baylor. Because a vote of no confidence almost always leads to a great deal of negative publicity and conflict as well as new leadership, faculty members are reluctant to undertake such measures except in the gravest of situations. The USM faculty clearly understands this. How much the IHL understands about such things is unknown."

---

Excellent analysis, Curmudgeon.  The words "No confidence" carries so much weight to those who *understand* higher education and the academy, I suspect the Senate is searching for the best way to communicate to the IHL Board (and public) and still accurately communicate their collective *professional* opinion.  We must remember that the faculty will still be working hard to save the "ship" from hitting the "rocks" of SACS accreditation and sinking.  They may be able to reach safe harbor with this captain, but the board must NOT let USM sail again without changing captains next year (if not sooner).  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Magnolia
"... However, there are many, many faculty who believe that this president is a hindrance to our getting off SACS probation and also to the reaffirmation in 06. The dilemma that the Senate is facing is that the possiblity of another 4 year term for SFT is seen by many as the worst alternative to chancing additional SACS problems.  I think the majority of the faculty would rather have to deal with SACS than to chance any possibility that we'll have to deal with this president for another 5 1/2 years.   "

---

May I add, Magnolia that facts revealed lately puts accreditation in question.  Such as,

1) the Strategic Plan that states it had input from the faculty, but that input wasn't included in the plan.   The goals were stated by SFT a full year BEFORE the faculty focus groups provided input.

2) SACS Credentials Guidelines clearly state "e) Faculty teaching graduate and post-graduate course work: earned doctorate/terminal degree IN THE TEACHING DISCIPLINE OR RELATED DISCIPLINE.  

USM is in violation of this standard.  Dr. Ken Malone is an example that comes to mind, but some say this is just the tip of the iceberg.

3) Changing or moving programs without input from Academic Council or Graduate Council to avoid accreditation problems because of low quality.  (Think Economic Development)

There is much more, but this post is getting too long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: row harder, Ben Hur
"

It gets more bizarre.....yesterday Exline reiterated the SACS terminal degree requirement and then told a group of chairs that "certain circumstances make it impossible to meet this requirement" and gave the example that this semester she was the "instructor of record" for a course, but master's level faculty were actually teaching it. If our accreditation expert doesn't bother to follow the SACS standards, what does that say about the sincerely of our university's effort to meet SACS standards??"

---