Thames and the SACS Violations - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Thames and the SACS Violations

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Thames is the giant Red Herring. The IHL could have stepped in long ago. The IHL could have listened to faculty and NOT hired Thames in the first place. The IHL is the one "destructing" USM. Thames is their puppet.

With the budget crisis and Medicaid discussions going on, many outside the university won't be listening to us "whiny" professors. I had no idea that one in four people in MS are on Medicaid. Astounding. The university budgets are in jeopardy and for the forseeable future. There really is no meaningful ED in Mississippi. The Canton plant will never repay itself, it's just there for politics and window dressing. ED is a political ploy. The real ED, educational development, is hard to qunatify and therefore impossible to show instant results. This state will never support education. As long as we have our Casinos and one car plant, we think we see the money rolling in. Not so.

One or more universities will have to go or be diminished in stature. I see no way out of this. It's unfortunate that the IHL can not just put their cards out on the table, "Here's the situation, here's our plan," and let people at schools like USM where they will stand in the new world order of MS. Then those at these schools can decide to stay or move on to mostly greener pastures. The closest thing to this that has occurred is Crofts interview in the CL.

The IHL is the cause of all this and I humbly predict that USM is on its way down further and permenantly. We Southerners find the past hard t let go of, but remember how USM started, it moved way beyond its original intent, and now it looks like we are headed back to our beginning. I wouldn't doubt if State takes over the Coast soon and starts building a large university branch down there. Mere speculation, but I think USM is not going to recover. I most humbly reccommend that faculty make their decisions to stay or go based on the idea that the IHL has nothing good planned for USM and will not be its savior. It's all about the money boys.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Kudzu King,

You are putting forward the "conspiracy theory," which has been much discussed on this board (and before it, on Fire Shelby).

Invictus is the lead conspiracy theorist here, so I will leave it to him to explain the details as he sees them.

You can also see a presentation of the anti-Southern Mississippi conspiracy theory my blog entry from May of last year, "The Designated Demolisher of USM"

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/5260.html

Personally, I think the conspiracy theory may be true, and hope that it isn't. To the extent that there is a conspiracy, it isn't terribly well organized...otherwise USM would have been killed a decade ago.

If the Board gets rid of Thames, presumably it will be because he has become too destructive for their tastes (I doubt the biggest enemies of USM were really trying to get the university deaccredited). And he's become an incredibly reliable generator of bad publicity for them.

Robert Campbell

PS. The Board has approved many actions by Thames that violated the internal rules of USM. The Board obviously didn't care whether Thames was following the rules or not... on some occasions, may have encouraged him to violate the rules. It's the violations of internal rules (who gets input into what, who has to approve this or that) that will concern SACS.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Now if the IHL has managed to violate SACs principles, then things could get very interesting indeed.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: System Probation
"Now if the IHL has managed to violate SACs principles, then things could get very interesting indeed. "

That is exactly why IHL must relieve SFT now. Else the scenerio:

SACS visitor: "Tell me how new courses and new programs are approved on this campus......"

Faculty member: "Well, our department has to approve them, then our college, then Academic Council or Graduate Council. Except if its a course or a program that the president wants to implement, then he can approve it without going through that process."

SACS visitor: "Tell me about the hiring process for new faculty...."

Faculty member: "Well, the department determines the qualifications it wants, submits paper work to the dean, provost, Affirmative Action Office. If approved, we solicit applications, review them and request permission to interview. Then we pick the best applicant and attempt to hire them. Except if the president has someone he wants to hire, then he tells them to report to the department chair and tell the chair he has a new faculty member who reports to the president."

SACS visitor: "Tell me about the tenure process.........."

Faculty member: "Assuming the faculty member is successful in the 3rd year review, they are usually reviewed in the sixth year for teaching research and service. If the department recommends tenure, the chair, college and dean review the recommendation and make recommendations to the provost and president. Except if the person is someone hired directly by the president, then they usually report to the department with tenure."

SACS visitor: "Tell me how raises are given....'

Faculty member: "In years past, the department personnel committees recommended the disbursement of any raise money, and that recommendation was usually followed by the chair, dean and provost. Now its just the chairs and the deans who divy up the money. Except for mid-year raises that go to people in favor with the president. Those raises seem to be awarded arbitrarily.

SACS visitor "....according to the process specified in the Faculty Handbook?"

Faculty member "No......."

SACS visitor : "were you told about the appeal process for these midyear raises?"

Faculty member: "No, there was no appeal process....or process of any type."

SACS visitor: "Tell me your name again............"

Faculty member: "I can't. People have lost their jobs for speaking out......."

Date: Mar 13, 2005

If the governing body of an institution is in violation of SACs principles then, inter alia, any institution governed by that body is in violation (i.e., Auburn). In our case, if IHL is in violation then all institutions governed by that body are __________ (fill in the blank question).

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: 1/USMTTT
" That is exactly why IHL must relieve SFT now. Else the scenerio: SACS visitor: "Tell me how new courses and new programs are approved on this campus......" Faculty member: "Well, our department has to approve them, then our college, then Academic Council or Graduate Council. Except if its a course or a program that the president wants to implement, then he can approve it without going through that process." SACS visitor: "Tell me about the hiring process for new faculty...." Faculty member: "Well, the department determines the qualifications it wants, submits paper work to the dean, provost, Affirmative Action Office. If approved, we solicit applications, review them and request permission to interview. Then we pick the best applicant and attempt to hire them. Except if the president has someone he wants to hire, then he tells them to report to the department chair and tell the chair he has a new faculty member who reports to the president." SACS visitor: "Tell me about the tenure process.........." Faculty member: "Assuming the faculty member is successful in the 3rd year review, they are usually reviewed in the sixth year for teaching research and service. If the department recommends tenure, the chair, college and dean review the recommendation and make recommendations to the provost and president. Except if the person is someone hired directly by the president, then they usually report to the department with tenure." SACS visitor: "Tell me how raises are given....' Faculty member: "In years past, the department personnel committees recommended the disbursement of any raise money, and that recommendation was usually followed by the chair, dean and provost. Now its just the chairs and the deans who divy up the money. Except for mid-year raises that go to people in favor with the president. Those raises seem to be awarded arbitrarily. SACS visitor "....according to the process specified in the Faculty Handbook?" Faculty member "No......." SACS visitor : "were you told about the appeal process for these midyear raises?" Faculty member: "No, there was no appeal process....or process of any type." SACS visitor: "Tell me your name again............" Faculty member: "I can't. People have lost their jobs for speaking out......." "

Arbitrary double secret mid year raises were given by the former (fired) deans under Fleming also. Not just under SFT. Department personnel committees were not always the personal authority used before SFT. Many departments used the chair as sole personal authority pre-SFT also. I agree with the rest.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Institutional Memory
"Arbitrary double secret mid year raises were given by the former (fired) deans under Fleming also. Not just under SFT. Department personnel committees were not always the personal authority used before SFT. Many departments used the chair as sole personal authority pre-SFT also. I agree with the rest. "

personal=personnel

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: 1/USMTTT
" That is exactly why IHL must relieve SFT now. Else the scenerio: SACS visitor: "Tell me how new courses and new programs are approved on this campus......" Faculty member: "Well, our department has to approve them, then our college, then Academic Council or Graduate Council. Except if its a course or a program that the president wants to implement, then he can approve it without going through that process." SACS visitor: "Tell me about the hiring process for new faculty...." Faculty member: "Well, the department determines the qualifications it wants, submits paper work to the dean, provost, Affirmative Action Office. If approved, we solicit applications, review them and request permission to interview. Then we pick the best applicant and attempt to hire them. Except if the president has someone he wants to hire, then he tells them to report to the department chair and tell the chair he has a new faculty member who reports to the president." SACS visitor: "Tell me about the tenure process.........." Faculty member: "Assuming the faculty member is successful in the 3rd year review, they are usually reviewed in the sixth year for teaching research and service. If the department recommends tenure, the chair, college and dean review the recommendation and make recommendations to the provost and president. Except if the person is someone hired directly by the president, then they usually report to the department with tenure." SACS visitor: "Tell me how raises are given....' Faculty member: "In years past, the department personnel committees recommended the disbursement of any raise money, and that recommendation was usually followed by the chair, dean and provost. Now its just the chairs and the deans who divy up the money. Except for mid-year raises that go to people in favor with the president. Those raises seem to be awarded arbitrarily. SACS visitor "....according to the process specified in the Faculty Handbook?" Faculty member "No......." SACS visitor : "were you told about the appeal process for these midyear raises?" Faculty member: "No, there was no appeal process....or process of any type." SACS visitor: "Tell me your name again............" Faculty member: "I can't. People have lost their jobs for speaking out......." "

This is an especially effective post; thanks for taking the time to write it.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Another great post by USM Sympathizer!!

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Sorry! -- I can't take any credit for this one (but wish I could).

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Sorry! -- I can't take any credit for this one (but wish I could)."

Oops! That should have been thanks to 1/USMTTT for the great post. Thanks USM Sympathizer.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

1/USMTTT,

You've captured perfectly how Thames' deliberate violations of USM's internal rules are going to cause trouble with SACS.

Remember how no one on this board seems to know whether Ken Malone has a faculty appointment... that's the perfect example.

A question for Invictus.... if SACS dings USM for the internal rule violations described by 1/USMTTT, and there is evidence that the Board knew these violations were occurring but signed off on Thames' actions anyway--does SACS ding the Board, too?

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 13, 2005

One of the most interesting talks we (AAUP) had with President Jane Bucks early in this fiasco was one of going for a sanction or censure of the IHL Board. AAUP national was intrigued with this idea because it is quite different from what normally happens.

If we get solid evidence, that is one direction for us to consider.

What frightens me is that we all know that SACS accredation will rest in a large measure, on our onsite visiting team. People who make up that team are from other universities. They all know two things.

1. USM is a mess.

2. SACS itself (like other regional voluntary accreditation agencies) is viewed by the federal government as soft. SACS can look very strong by coming down hard on a big, state institution like USM.

Maybe I am overestimating the importance of the SACS visiting team and the perception of SACS by the feds. I admit I am very new at this (and my inexperience has been pointed out a number of times on this board, and you will all notice I have never objected!!).

I'd appreciate some feedback by people who know how this works.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Amy,

Good point.

The national AAUP censures the upper administration of a university.

I don't know whether it's ever censured a governing board--let alone a system board, like the IHL.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"Guys Wake up here. Thames did not violate any SACS rules in the college restructing (which is the only thing he's done I supported). Thames only proposed the changes, the IHL is the body that made the changes. Thames is not your problem, so don't go running to the IHL to fix your problem. The problem for all of us is the IHL. Until we have a meaningful overhaul of the IHL, USM will never be treated fairly. Understand that the IHL is just another state body that is biased towards South Mississippi. Do you wonder why UM and MSU never have problems like USM is always facing, because they do not have the IHL working against them. Thames is only one man, he could not possibly create all the problems we are having in Hattiesburg. He is a pawn to the IHL. To the Business community it looks like he's standing up for USM, and in his heart he believes he is, but I tell you he's beeing played for a fool by Klumb and the IHL."
Kudzu King,

I took the family to church, had a nice lunch and took some afternoon time to relax and stayed away from the message board and behold! A new player (you) joins the message board. Kudzu King, I agree with some if not most of all of your message above. We both have an agenda, my is getting rid of SFT, what's yours?

If you've gone back in the message board you will know I too am not a fan of SFT and along with Invictus believe in the IHL using Shelby as a pawn. Solutions to USM problems must be handled one at a time. SFT is the first problem. IHL may have to wait, besides Klumb will turn over the IHL leadership soon.

Kudzu King, this week SFT may get evaluated by the IHL. You MUST use what every influence you have on Eagle Talk and rally the athletic side. Do you know Dr. Lucas? Convince him to speak out. Do you know Bobby Chain?....talk is that Chain and SFT are NOT friends and his support would greatly help the cause. Get him to speak out. Who else can you influence?

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: The Awful Truth
"One or more universities will have to go or be diminished in stature . . . The IHL is the cause of all this and I humbly predict that USM is on its way down further and permenantly."

What you say may be correct. But if USM bites the dust, three of the four schools that the IHL has designated as "comprehensive universities" will be located North of HWY 80 (Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Jackson State). South Mississippi would be left bone dry and without a major university. If that appears to be happening (and evidently many posters believe that your hypothesis is correct), the citizens down here should throw a royal hissy fit. I fail to understand why the average Joe Doe on the street, as well as the business owners in South Mississippi, have not raised holy Toledo already.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

I agree Green Hornet. Kudzu King identifies the problem as the IHL, but never suggests any actions to correct that problem. Does Kudzu King expect us to stop talking about SFT and start in on the IHL? They have constitutional authority and can't be touched AFAICT. Is Kudzu King's agenda to distract us and have us earn the animosity of the IHL? It could be a desperate defense strategy for SFT.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

IMHO, I believe MS is trying to go the CA, NC, LA, AR, MS etc. route. The University of Mississippi Hattiesburg, The University of Mississippi Gulf Park . . . Centralized university processes although separate governances. Play Shelby for the fool he is - let his ego wreck a university that I continue to cherish - then go in for the kill. The Cal State program works well in the land of smog and plenty just as the U of CA does. We aren't big enough for that in MS. I think it will all be centralized in Jackson with Oxford being the star!!!! Okay, posters - time to humble this idea!

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Whoops I meant to use MA as an example rather than MS in that list of states.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote: Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
Meant to repost this wonderful message from Stephen on this thread.

"I can testify to this; When I came here in 98 it wasn't because I had too. It was because USM had the energy and vitality of a riser . . . . what has murdered this university IS NOT what happened on the inside (at least in terms of faculty). A bad economy and even bad legislators could not have destroyed this university's spirit alone --
the destruction came from the IHL Board which is incompetent and hubristic. In its desire to rein in the State's rising university and what it perceieved as a faculty that was growing in indpendence, it decided to appoint a small minded petty bureaucrat with an excellent history in applied science and a terrible history as an administrator (and some would add . . . human being).
The destruction of this university is completely at the hands of the IHL Board. They gave us Shelby Thames and his gang. They have perpetuated this administrations venility, incompetence, and corruption.
There may be good people on the Board. But the Board is the enemy. It has completely failed the people of South Mississippi.
J'accuse."

Date: Mar 13, 2005

I think something is being overlooked here. The people at SACS did not just fall off of the turnip truck. They have many years of experience with Boards and universities. I will wager that the SACS consultant has informed Croft that this is a problem beyond USM. SACS will determine that this is more of a Board problem than a USM problem. It is the Board that has an agenda, SFT just happened to be handy to implement their agenda. Given their lack of acumen, the Board did not anticipate SACS intervening in the manner they have and will. Since it has become a Board issue, SACS will turn some of their attention to the Board and other universities in the system. Given the lack of leadership on the Board, and their level of ignorance about how universities function, the Board will continue to step into bigger piles of bad stinky stuff. I think that this mess will go on much longer than they anticipate, and much longer than we would like. The only good thing will be that the people suffering will extend beyond the USM family.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

There are a number of things on this thread that seem to require a response. One is that Shelby Thames is a mere "pawn" of the IHL, which is the real culprit. This view depends on (a) our thinking that the IHL has a clue as to what it's doing, a view from which I dissent. Every 4 years some yahoo governor pays off his supporters by putting 4 new people on the board. Many, like Roy Klumb, are about as unsuited to have a say in higher education as I am to run a lumber yard. Further, even though these people stay on the board for 12 years, the make-up of the board is always changing. Where's the continuity, the constancy of intelligent design, to make any conspiracy theory credible? The only people who are always there are staff members, and nobody can believe that Ray Cleere sat down with that guy who went on to Kentucky (Laze-ell, wasn't it), who sat down with the next guy (who looked like Hal Holbrook--Potter?) and passed on the secret handshake and mission statement: keep USM down. This doesn't mean they aren't keeping USM down, it just means they aren't nearly so methodical about it as some on this board have suggested.
(b) Shelby may be playing a part that the board approves of, but he's still guilty, and he is the one who suggested his role to the Board. We all know he went up to them and told them things that exactly suited their prejudices and limitations: (1) the faculty are a bunch of lazy slugs; I will whip them into shape and extract a day's work for a day's pay; (2) don't sweat it that there appears not to be enough money to run things--by the time I get through with economic development, you'll probably want to be borrowing money from me for the whole system. All this gets plays into the the average's person's anti-intellectual prejudices that professors are lazy and don't do any real work in the best of circumstances and gets the monkey off the board's back for the impossible financial predicament the state is in. Shelby's sin and error is that he deliberately fed this prejudice and thinks, because he knows nothing about anything except "coatings," that the problem is with faculty productivity. He lived amongst faculty colleagues for 30+ years and never developed any academic friends or any appreciation for what anyone did except himself and (maybe) his few cronies that could bring in $$ through political or agency connections. $$ is what makes Shelby tick, and this played excellently with the IHL Board, most of whom also appear to worship Mammon (is anyone out there purshing for "spiritual development")..

What I suggest is this: get the USM faculty--maybe through the AAUP--to collect $1,000 (or whatever it takes) and publicly challenge the board--through a full-page ad in the Clarion- Ledger--to come clean about their plans for USM. Get someone good to write this up, and lay everything on the line in public. Explain to the public how it seems that the IHL board is culpably negligent in not responding to the problems; outline the depredations of Thames and his administration; challenge the concerned citizens of south Mississippi and concerned alums to help create an atmosphere in which USM can move forward.
Find out whether there really IS a conspiracy or not.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

kick, big time

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Sorry for the typo: I meant "pushing" (not "purshing") for "spiritual development."

Date: Mar 13, 2005

kick-o-reeny

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Really? Who got those raises by the deans under Fleming? Don't generalize. Let's have the facts. I doubt you can produce any. Raises are always public knowledge. You can go to the library and look at the salaries. There are no secrets about salaries. You know better than that. Whose chain are you trying to pull? Let's have some facts here.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: toga
"Really? Who got those raises by the deans under Fleming? Don't generalize. Let's have the facts. I doubt you can produce any. Raises are always public knowledge. You can go to the library and look at the salaries. There are no secrets about salaries. You know better than that. Whose chain are you trying to pull? Let's have some facts here."

Once again, unclear as to what you're responding to. However, not all the salaries show up in public records. Salaries can be augmented by foundation money, grant money, consulting fees, and all sorts of extra whatevers. Ken Malone's salary comes from at least three different places == that we even know about.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: toga
"Really? Who got those raises by the deans under Fleming? Don't generalize. Let's have the facts. I doubt you can produce any. Raises are always public knowledge. You can go to the library and look at the salaries. There are no secrets about salaries. You know better than that. Whose chain are you trying to pull? Let's have some facts here."

I agree with Third, it's unclear who you are responding to (sounds like you are at a Toga party and had too much keg). I mentioned the previous raises in a post above, so it might be me. There were a various raises under Fleming--all are public record. One set generated so much controversy in my department (raises seem to do that), that several faculty approached MH for relief. One became so POed at MH's response, that he was among those who started the trend to move to Tier Is (Penn State). I received a mid year raise under Fleming. Didn't ask for it, didn't know until it was a done deal. I had an interview at a definite Tier 1, and I guess the word got around. The dean, at the time, must have felt I was worth keeping around. I know people in other colleges who received small raises over the same years. Those are the facts, and it's not a big deal--it's all public record. Your wish for me to pull your chain raises some questions, though. Tell me a little about your mother...