dean of COAL - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 12, 2005

RE: dean of COAL

Date: Feb 12, 2005

Sub-Admining becomes even more fun!

Your handle implies that you are an administrator, but not a dean or higher. My references were to Deans, VPs, and Provosts. If you are one of those, I want you gone. If you are not, stay as long as the faculty supports you. If you are a dean or above, I do not despise you, that takes emotion. My statements are not from emotion. Experience has taught me that people who are comfortable taking administrative jobs and buying into bad practices are not very valuable. They are virtually useless in an environment where trust and leadership are crucial. Unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to assume you do not belong to the group I have defined. I will further assume that you are doing the job to try to protect faculty and make sure that students get the best education they can under these trying circumstances. You can disabuse me of my assumptions if you wish.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"Sub-Admining becomes even more fun! Your handle implies that you are an administrator, but not a dean or higher. My references were to Deans, VPs, and Provosts. If you are one of those, I want you gone. If you are not, stay as long as the faculty supports you. If you are a dean or above, I do not despise you, that takes emotion. My statements are not from emotion. Experience has taught me that people who are comfortable taking administrative jobs and buying into bad practices are not very valuable. They are virtually useless in an environment where trust and leadership are crucial. Unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to assume you do not belong to the group I have defined. I will further assume that you are doing the job to try to protect faculty and make sure that students get the best education they can under these trying circumstances. You can disabuse me of my assumptions if you wish."

At least you are consistent.

I'm not, I'm afraid. I'm much more afraid of perpetuating a cyle of anger by treating people of a particular title the same . . . my (albeit limited) experience dealing with at least a few of these folks at the level above chair suggests to me that some of them aren't bad people and actually might emerge from this disaster with greater wisdom and compassion . . . I'm completely open to being wrong -- I'm certainly not the best judge of character . . . I think it is still possible to have Saul/Paul conversions . . . .

I'm not above some kind of post Shelby public conversation with designated faculty leaders and the deans in which the faculty should be able to raise questions about what motivated the deans to take certain actions and allow the Deans the ability to defend themselves. That offers, in a sense, the possbility for some kind of action similar to what happened in South Africa and other states in which administrators have been brought to task. Some of those administrators lost their jobs, a few survived. I think something like that might not be a bad idea in order for us to move ahead --

I just cannot accept blanket statements about deans, assistant deans or all administrators above the chair level. It is too much like having all faculty members painted as lazy . . .

There is a syllogism here.

All administrators in the Thames administration are bad and should lose their jobs.

_________ (fill in the blank) is an administrator in the Thames administration.

Therefore _________ is bad and should lose (his/her) job.

My tendency is to believe that most of the administrators above the level of chair have been fatally compromised -- but the evidence to the contrary would be necessarily evidence I would have a hard time seeing unless, like Doty, the administrator stepped out into the open.

Remember -- Doty has had a couple of years to make this move. He made it because his hand was forced and he had only a limited set of options. I'm glad he made that choice -- but you do not know if other Deans, presented with similar choices, might not also step out into the open. I can remember numerous instances in which Doty was being viewed as a far from heroic figure . . .

I really hate finding myself defending members of an administration I truly abhor . . . but I find it impossible to address these people only through their titles, as though the titles summed up the essences of their characters.

I may be very sensitive to this right now because I'm very aware that my own present position has certainly involved me making compromises I would not have made when I was responsible only for myself. I'm not intereste in defending those compromises -- I know why I make them. But I'm not in the least bit interested in havinbg someone throw me into the pile of administrative bodies to be cooked because I haven't maintained a complete independence from others who are thought to be even more severely compromised.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Cossack
"Sub-Admining becomes even more fun! Your handle implies that you are an administrator, but not a dean or higher. My references were to Deans, VPs, and Provosts. If you are one of those, I want you gone. If you are not, stay as long as the faculty supports you. If you are a dean or above, I do not despise you, that takes emotion. My statements are not from emotion. Experience has taught me that people who are comfortable taking administrative jobs and buying into bad practices are not very valuable. They are virtually useless in an environment where trust and leadership are crucial. Unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to assume you do not belong to the group I have defined. I will further assume that you are doing the job to try to protect faculty and make sure that students get the best education they can under these trying circumstances. You can disabuse me of my assumptions if you wish."

Cossack-

You do make a couple of flawed assumptions. Although you may want all deans and VPs gone, there is variability among the colleges with respect to faculty support of deans and VPs (few folks are hot and heavy to nail Cecil or Ken P, for example). In at least one college, there is clear unanimity in wanting the dean gone. In some others, the deans have pretty good support of the faculty. For the dome, that is a different story. I think the majority of faculty, chairs, directors, associate deans, and deans want a dramatic change in our central leadership as soon as possible (you think it's hard being a faculty here? try doing the job with a fire lit on your b--t 24/7). Most (but not all) admin types outside the dome (at least the ones I know) do not "buy into bad practices," but do their best to engage in sound academic practices with a boss who believes in a model that is the antithesis of sound academic practices. You may want them all gone (and you do sound angry, which is an understandable response to our troubles), but I encourage you to not tar everyone in upper admin (Deans and higher) with the same brush.

I think that the next president will take a close look at the entire admin support structure and make major changes--there are some admin folks who would be toast with a new dome, as it should be. And I wouldn't cry if it were a clean sweep, as long as it is done for good reasons (we've tried it the other way, and it wasn't a great outcome).

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Sub-Admining is Fun! Close the portholes and dive!
""

Sub admin says it much better . . . . a good post.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

In reviewing my own post, I do want to assert some exceptions:

Our current model of institutional power is that it is flows from the center outward. So the closer you are to power and the more distributed power you wield, the more responsible you are for the misuse of that power. Therefore I'd say it would be impossible for me to accept that a Provost working in the present administration deserves to survive into the next . . . .

I think the VPs might be a bit different -- not all of them are in administrative loops in which they have the authority to cause significant harm to faculty, staff, or students. I think there is quite a big difference, for instance, between Joe Paul and Ken Malone -- not only in how they wield their authority, but in the domains in which their authority is asserted. Malone is in a position to make things better (never mind that he wouldn't be in his present position if he wasn't slavering to do the President's bidding). Others clearly are not in the same position. Susan Siltanen, had she not tilted the numbers earlier, would probably be in the same category -- more or less out of the way administrators whose ability to cause direct harm is probably significantly abridged.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Judd's #2 Groupie
" Mr. Wonderful, are you accepting nominations for a lifetime achievement award? I'd like to nominate Prof. Judd."

Duly noted.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

To all of those who think me too harsh and/or simplistic: While I admire your willingness to give these folks some slack, and I do not totally reject your concept that not all of these folks are "bad people", they are at least weak. Moreover, the costs and benefits are not symmetric. You may be right that without Shelby and Ken these administrators will prove equal to the task. Giving them a chance has high costs for all of us and a low probability of success. Moreover, monitoring their behavior also involves costs in that we will have to evaluate each of their decisions; did they do this for the overall benefit or are they being self-serving? Our problem is similar to that of the cheating spouse. What is the level of trust that remains, and how much has it damaged the relationship? For all of us collectively, it is time for a divorce from those who have given us reason to mistrust them. The more of those who held administrative positions under Shelby (with the exception of Doty and perhaps Foss who is recent) are replaced, the sooner USM will be restored to physical and emotional health.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Here's my vote:

Thames: GONE
Grimes: GONE
Moore: GONE
Exline: GONE
Pood: GONE
Gandy: GONE
Lassen: GONE
Malone: GONE
Pierce: Stay
Fos: Stay (probationary - see if he does anything)
Doty: Stay (probationary - see how he functions in a new environment)
Walls: Stay (best of the Dean's bunch)

It may take several years for the new admin to make these changes, but as long as any remnants of the old regime are here, there will be bitter memories and suspicion.

For any of those on my GONE list, I'll be glad to carry your boxes to your car, and I bet there will be more willing workers than on Fleming's move-into-the-dorm days.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

May I add one chair who hopefully won't have daddy to back her punitive problems soon.

Dana Thames: GONE (and hopefully FORGOTTEN)