quote: Originally posted by: Robert Campbell "scm, If the Board hadn't screwed up so royally, there would be no need for anyone else to tell them what to do. As for "We hired this guy. He's awful. But firing him means admitting he's awful and therefore that we screwed up"--didn't some Board members expect Thames to be awful? Maybe a substantial majority did. We still have missing data on that question. Robert Campbell"
Robert, do you think the IHL Board's response to the FS Motion will answer that question for you? For me it will answer it loud and clear.
If the Board decides not to extend Thames' contract, it will mean that a majority is now admitting that it screwed up. (Not exactly how it screwed up, but if it gets rid of Thames, I think we'll be able to tolerate that bit of uncertainty.)
If the Board decides to give Thames four more years, under present conditions, that doesn't prove the conspiracy theory true--such a decision be made by really obstinate, foolish individuals who can't admit making a mistake. (And no one here believes that anyone on the Board is like that, right? ) But I think it would convince most of us that the Board expected Thames to be awful and wants him to keep being that way.
quote: Originally posted by: Reporter "Robert, do you think the IHL Board's response to the FS Motion will answer that question for you? For me it will answer it loud and clear. "
Why this FS motion and not last year's no confidence vote by the whole faculty? (I know, I know, we were acting "emotionally without all of the facts"--supposedly.) But that message was very clear and the IHL didn't hear it then. It makes them look worse to acknowledge it now, though of course, they should. Better late than never.