Hourly Worker - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Hourly Worker

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Supreme Court Reporter
"It's funny how workers are invisible to the big wigs. I worked the Trent Lott sand box dedication last week and was cleaning up and listening to board member Scott Ross discussing the strategy to keep SFT for 4 more years. He was telling Mike Randolph how to "handle" another board member, Ed Blakesley, to vote for another 4. He also gave Mr. Randolph a book and told him to get it to "Carl." Mr. Randolph went over and pounced on Mr. Blaksley and hammered him to keep SFT for 4 more. He didn't bother Ms. Newton. Can we assume any cases that get to the Supreme Court will already be decided for USM/SFT. Why would a Supreme Court Justice be so pushy about keeping SFT? I thought he was a good guy. Now, I don't think he is very smart. Another one bites the dust."

This is the kind of information that is very helpful, assuming that the oster is valid.

If true, it would definitely indicate the Board is split on SFT and that the internal campaigning is active.

Beyond the fact that he is a neanderthal, why would Scott Ross have an interest in saving Thames? (conspiracy theorists don't answer this -- I'm trying to inquire about other possible motivations, if any).

If we can't come up with any, perhaps the theorists have a point.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

I continue to hope that the conspiracy theorists are in error. But we do not have enough data yet to accept or reject these theories.

Perhaps an anthropological perspective will help. I think that when a group of powerful people, like the IHL board members, have no true vested interest in what is going on, nor do they have all of the data to make decisions, politics for the sake of power come into play. Power politics for power politics sake.

Board members really do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the situation at USM, other than just holding it together so they don't look bad. They are also primarily business people who (with true American ideals) want to maximize profits and minimize costs. They have a profile of the "perfect" worker - presumably one who works really hard, doesn't question the boss, etc. This has historically NOT been the kind of graduate universities "produce." Only in a few instances are business people really looking for innovative, creative and critical thinkers - precisely the kind of graduates that all good universities strive for.

Essentially there is a disconnection between the board members' vision for Mississippi university and college graduates, and what most research oriented universities believe is the right thing to do. Our visions may be vastly different.

Further, the board members are getting a very skewed picture of what is happening at USM in particular. They have input only from top-level administrators who are going to tell them what they want to hear (of course!). What might help is if the board members listen to faculty. Then they can make decisions that are more fully informed. Even better if there is interaction between faculty and the board, perhaps we can come to share a vision.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Supreme Court Reporter
"It's funny how workers are invisible to the big wigs. I worked the Trent Lott sand box dedication last week and was cleaning up and listening to board member Scott Ross discussing the strategy to keep SFT for 4 more years. He was telling Mike Randolph how to "handle" another board member, Ed Blakesley, to vote for another 4. He also gave Mr. Randolph a book and told him to get it to "Carl." Mr. Randolph went over and pounced on Mr. Blaksley and hammered him to keep SFT for 4 more. He didn't bother Ms. Newton. Can we assume any cases that get to the Supreme Court will already be decided for USM/SFT. Why would a Supreme Court Justice be so pushy about keeping SFT? I thought he was a good guy. Now, I don't think he is very smart. Another one bites the dust."

until mike randolph was appointed to supreme court and then elected carl nicholson (i assume this is the carl in above conversation) was very much at odds.

when mike got his new job, carl became a big supporter. i guess we all see the light from time to time...

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Stephen:

What the poster has told us is true. Thames made a big cash contribution to Randolph. Clyde Ginn was the bag man for delivery.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

The answer about Scott Ross may be in the package he is trying to push through IHL regarding funding, bonds and construction. He is pushing a consortium that will get funding and do construction for all IHL properties. The only problem is that there will be no bidding. Every project will go to these people and Yates Construction is the general contractor. As you know, Yates Construction supports Scott Ross. SFT has entered into an agreement with Scott on this deal and has agreed to have a five story parking garage built and a huge dormority. It could be the soroity village. Not all universities agreed to participate, but SFT did in order to garner Scott's vote for another term. So, Scott Ross has a huge interest in keeping SFT in place because SFT will "do bidness with the big boys."

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Juror No. 1
"Stephen:Clyde Ginn was the bag man for delivery."

What is the relationship between Thames & Ginn? Are they in-laws or otherwise related by marriage?

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Genealogist
" What is the relationship between Thames & Ginn? Are they in-laws or otherwise related by marriage?"

no you have shelby and aubrey confused

bud and aubrey are kinfolk

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Shelby is a girl's name and Ginn is a girl's name, that is how they are related.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Thames is the controlling Narcissist and Ginn is the manipulative Narcissist. Perfect Combination. They work extremely well together. Ginn tell SFT what he needs to believe and SFT lets Ginn be the chosen one. It takes one to know one.