Questions about the "Meeting" and Dr. Lucas - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Questions about the "Meeting" and Dr. Lucas

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
"I urge you to support the faculty of what was once a fine university. "

... and which can, with experienced & effective leadership, become a fine university again. Every day that SFT remains president delays this process by months, if not years.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

RE: RE: Questions about the "Meeting" and Dr. Luca

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
" Thank you Invictus for the addition.... For those who attended the meeting last Thursday and have directed to this board, I've read that you were provided with information of postings of quotes indicating that we were proposing violence against individuals. I think if you would do a little research you will find that those statements are FALSE and that you are being used by the Thames administration. Talk to someone on the faculty. Ask about the TRUTH on the Nursing Program. Read Glenn Harper's letter in the Sat Hattiesburg American. Find out the facts..........."

Another fine post, Hornet. I hope all members of our community read this board. I hope they don't just lurk here, but rather engage in the discussion. They will quickly realize we are generally polite, rational and concerned citizens, just like they are.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

RE: Questions about the "Meeting" and Dr. Lucas

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Neutral Party
" I attended the meeting as an interested, neutral party... The way the information was conveyed at the meeting was NOT as a list of SFT accolades. There were not giving SFT "credit" for this list of accomplishments. They were merely listing all the "GOOD" info. about our University because our local media has (and will) NOT. Their point was to show that despite the negative things that HAVE been plastered in the media, there are far more positive things that should get equal billing. I'm NOT "for" or "against" SFT, because I have no idea what it takes to be the President of a University. But from what I can see on this board, it is a sad state of affairs at USM right now, and someone from both sides of these issues need to try and mend the fences and find some common ground to start fixing things, rather than complaining. That is what these business owners/operators were trying to do, in my opinion. The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. "

Neutral Party,

First, thanks for being willing to dialogue with us honestly.

I must say that I think the call to talk about "positive things" is rather desperate. There are also many positive things that can be said about the body of someone hemorrhaging to death in the emergency room, but if the doctors took time out to talk about those things and let the patient die, they would be arrested for criminal malpractice.

Jameela

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Neutral party, nothing less than the continued existence of USM is at stake. As in Professor Lares' vivid metaphor, the patient is bleeding to death. Some in the community do not seem to understand that Dr. Thames LET the university be placed on probation by SACS by his inattention and by firing the people who had the ability to deal with the situation. Don't forget that he has made nearly a clean sweep of "middle management" at USM, destroying critical institutional memory in the process.

Here's what loss of SACS accreditation means:

No credits will transfer to other schools
No qualified professors will work here
No (or little) financial aid
Loss of discipline-specific accreditation in other programs.

Essentially, USM would have to shut down. The probation itself and the increasingly bad reputation USM has in the scholarly world is already hurting recruitment of new faculty.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Neutral Party: We appreciate, as many have said, having the opportunity to discuss these issues with people who may not see things from our side of the desk or building. Please remember that our primary job is to do the best job we can of educating our students--the vast majority of posters are dedicated to this above all. Remember as well that the primary job of a university president--the bottom line, really--is to protect his/her institution's ACADEMIC reputation. Under this president, we've lost a lot of standing in this regard--standing measured by the "drop" in tier-status in the US News and World Report rankings and, most distressingly, by among a tiny handful of schools placed on probation by SACS. If you want to know more about how the presidency of SFT has compromised--and continues to compromise--our standing with SACS and the chances of being removed from probation, please read the "Thames and SACS Violations" thread.

Thanks, and NO QUARTER.

Ellen Weinauer

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Dear Neutral Party,

Thank you for visiting and for posting politely. Your acknowledgement that you don't know what a university president's role is was an important one, however. The academic experts do know what a university president's role is and Dr. Shelby Thames has proven himself incapable of meeting the challenge of that role. Rankings, accreditation, and development are but three performance areas where he has failed in his administrative duties. Without competent academic administrators, the faculty are swimming upstream in an attempt to save the university. The strong PR campaign out of the president's office, which was accepted by the media for so long, has actually served to mask the serious problems at the university. Acknowledging the problem is a necessary first step. The next step is removing the cause. "Mending fences" is what we all look forward to under new leadership.

ED

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"
Neutral Party,
First, thanks for being willing to dialogue with us honestly.
I must say that I think the call to talk about "positive things" is rather desperate. There are also many positive things that can be said about the body of someone hemorrhaging to death in the emergency room, but if the doctors took time out to talk about those things and let the patient die, they would be arrested for criminal malpractice.
Jameela"

Another fine post Jameela, You've earned your Diet Cherry Coke for the day.

I agree that I would like Neutral Party to continue this dialogue.
I respectfully however disagree that the media is concentrating on just the negative. We have many faculty that are engaged in positive "news". THAT's Lisa M's JOB, but most of what you see out of her office are presidential new releases and SPIN. It's hard to promote the university community when there mismanagement issues in the news.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Neutral Party,

I understand that what appears to be squabbling within seems to be something to get over and move on. The problem is that faculty has been asking for a seat at the table and it continously seems like musical chairs and the chair gets pulled out and they don't have a seat at the table. We term this as the illusion of inclusion at my institution. There are very good things that can occur at USM and that have occured at USM. But this must be taken with the enormously egregious behavior by the administration to quash the intellectual growth of the institution. Hey, even if, (a huge IF) Mr. Thames were doing things well, actually leading the institution in a positive way, if he had taken care of the SACS problem or owned up to his responsibility, allowed the library to buy books, not attempt to fire two valuable members of the academy, restructured with total campus input, taken the fall for the enrollment debacle, amid other things, would this whole thing be happening? Who knows, but I think it wouldn't be any where as polarizing as it is now. The fact is he did do those things among other (Handbury's e-mail, the tier drop, the Grimes' memo). This is where we are. There is no way to get back to 4 years ago or, more importantly, to the future with Mr. Thames at the helm of a sinking ship. It kills me to use that analogy because I hate to see USM drop off the radar.

Please, Neutral Party, understand the frustration that people in the bitter struggle feel. So many will not use their names because they are concerned for their livelyhood. That should show you how concerned people are. I have friends and family who attend USM and I won't use my name because I'm concerned for them.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Neutral Party
" ... They were merely listing all the "GOOD" info. about our University because our local media has (and will) NOT. Their point was to show that despite the negative things that HAVE been plastered in the media, there are far more positive things that should get equal billing. ... "

I too thank you for your excellent post, Neutral Party. Can you stand one more analogy? You are correct to state "Their point was to show that despite the negative things that HAVE been plastered in the media, there are far more positive things..." . The trick they pulled on the attendees is confusing numbers with importance. The faculty are pointing out that the Titanic is sinking, and the area leaders are pointing how beautiful the deck chairs are arranged. True there are many deck chairs, but only one ship sinking.

The Hattiesburg American would be derelict in their duty if they distracted the citizens from the sinking of USM by spending their time printing how beautiful the band played as it went down.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
" True there are many deck chairs, but only one ship sinking. "

Great line, Reporter; surely this should be nominated for the award. I hereby do so.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Neutral Party
" I attended the meeting as an interested, neutral party... The way the information was conveyed at the meeting was NOT as a list of SFT accolades. There were not giving SFT "credit" for this list of accomplishments. They were merely listing all the "GOOD" info. about our University because our local media has (and will) NOT. Their point was to show that despite the negative things that HAVE been plastered in the media, there are far more positive things that should get equal billing. I'm NOT "for" or "against" SFT, because I have no idea what it takes to be the President of a University. But from what I can see on this board, it is a sad state of affairs at USM right now, and someone from both sides of these issues need to try and mend the fences and find some common ground to start fixing things, rather than complaining. That is what these business owners/operators were trying to do, in my opinion. The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. "

I also thank you for your post Neutral Party. I'd like to respectfullly point out that while the faculty has been drawing attention to the critical failures of this administration as signs that the institution is deteriorating as an academic enterprise, all of us have also been working at doing our primary jobs of teaching and researching; serving on committees, and raising money for the university (oh, yes . . . . this is something I spend a large percentage of my time on just about every day). Many of us are engaged with members of the administration on various academic committees, working on the SACs probation and reaccreditation reports and visits, and in the numerous day to day business of running the university. The failure of the administration vis a vis SACs incidently, has not only greatly increased the faculty workload, but it has drawn off valuable resources of money and faculty time that should be used elsewhere. The institution is paying heavily for this mistake, but all that the Presdient says to the public is "it will be fixed . . " as though he can snap his fingers and presto, it is a done deal. WE are the fingers that he snaps . . . WE are the muscle who have to put our shoulders against the wheel and move the car out of the ditch.

One of the problems that we constantly discover is that in those ordinary, everyday activities we find members of the administration maneuvering to weaken faculty participation in the acitivities of reorganization, of prioritizing of resources, etc. It is our work on these committees and our constant discoveries and exposure of actions that are often stupid and dangerous for the university that have maintained the little credibility this institution has left. Think -- is it the faculty that got us into trouble with SACs? Is it the faculty that keeps proposing new programs despite our SACs consultants warning that we would be "lunatics" to start new programs? Is it the faculty that enlisted 700 students in a course last fall and then dropped them after the 10 day IHL headcount in order to arrive at the announcement that we were now the largest university in the state? Is it the faculty that contributed to the failure to report that caused our drop to Tier IV?

I respect your want to mend the fences. Most of us are continuing, in our work, to maintain the fences that the administration seems intent on knocking down. What do you do with a steer that seems intent on kicking the fenceposts every time you fix them? Do you just keep mending or do you lock him up (or send him to the meatpackers)?

The one constant in this is that this administration never stops -- it seems never to sleep. It keeps on inventing new schemes that get us into trouble. It keeps on hiring new people who are not qualified for the jobs they are given -- and then giving them broader and broader responsibility which they cannot manage. They keep on actively firing people who know how things run and replacing them with new people who don't. The chaos here at every level has overwhelmed our ability to work productively -- change may be good, but too much change, change that is too fast, and change that is covert and unexplained and that seems to have no unifying justification is change that is disorienting and ultimately, destructive of morale. This is also change that does not get enough thought and planning put into it -- and thus the spectacle of the numerous times this administration has had to undo precipitous decisions that were not well thought out. Many of these have never been made public -- but they have happened I can assure you.

Best wishes -- I do believe that we all share in the want for USM to return to its previous trajectory upward. It just won't happen under this administration.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Great line, Reporter; surely this should be nominated for the award. I hereby do so."

USM Sympathizer, you beat me to it. But I perferred the line:

"The Hattiesburg American would be derelict in their duty if they distracted the citizens from the sinking of USM by spending their time printing how beautifully the band played as it went down."